Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current

EPA Efforts to Protect

Ecosystems

Doug Norton, Project Officer

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds

Office of Water, USEPA 

Credits and Notices

Introduction Page

About the Inventory

Guidelines for Listing Projects in this Inventory

Background: The Edgewater Consensus

Future of the Inventory

Part One: Large-Scale Ecosystem Protection Efforts

Projects that cover at least 100,000 square kilometers 

Part Two: Regional Summaries of Local Scale Ecosystem Protection Efforts

Projects that are place-based, less than 100,000 square kilometers 

Part Three: Multisite Ecosystem Protection Efforts

Activities are carried out throughout the region or nation 
Red dots indicate reference points for local-scale projects.

Shaded areas of the map indicate locations of the large-scale projects.

Search for Projects by State

Select a state and get a list of the protection efforts under way in that state. 

Search for Projects Using Index Page

Listing of all efforts by category and EPA Region
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

A Phase 1 Inventory of Current EPA 

Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water (4503F) Washington, DC 20460

EPA 841-S-95-001 January 1995

Douglas J. Norton, Project Officer

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

Office of Water (4503F)

United States Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

Compiled by 

Tetra Tech, Inc.

10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340

Fairfax, VA 22030

Web Exhibit Created by 

Martin Marietta Technical Service, Inc.

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

e-mail: internet_support@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov
Notice

This document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency review and has been 

approved for publication. Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and 

policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or of any other organization represented in this 

document. Mention of trade names does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

This report should be cited as: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect 

Ecosystems. EPA841-S-95-001. Office of Water (4503F), United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC. 

To obtain copies, contact: 

National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)

Phone: (513) 489-8190

Fax: (513) 891-6685

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Introduction

About the Inventory

This Inventory includes summaries of projects that involve EPA and its partners in place-based 

management and ecosystem protection (an approach intended to integrate environmental management 

with human needs, consider long-term ecosystem health, and highlight the positive correlations between 

economic prosperity and environmental well-being). The purpose of this document is to let readers 

throughout EPA and outside the Agency know of the increasing amount and variety of ecologically 

oriented activities in which EPA is participating and the many places at which these activities are 

occurring. The Inventory was prepared under the direction of EPA's Ecosystem Protection Task Force. 

The Inventory covers ongoing projects and was compiled from submittals by Regions, Headquarters 

Program Offices, and EPA Laboratories. Except for minor editorial changes, the summaries appear 

exactly as submitted. About half of these project summaries were submitted originally to the Watershed 

Protection Approach 1993/94 Activity Report, and the others were submitted in response to Task Force 

requests issued Agency-wide. The submittal process was voluntary and as a result the Inventory is not 

comprehensive. 

The Introduction includes a brief description of the Inventory, background information about emerging 

EPA policies concerning place-based management and ecosystem protection, criteria for projects listed, 

and thoughts on revising and improving the Inventory over time. Following the Introduction, Part One 

summarizes EPA's largest ecologically oriented projects; these are large-scale initiatives that cover areas 

of at least 100,000 square kilometers. Part Two, which constitutes most of the report, is organized by EPA 

Region and includes summaries of ongoing, place-based projects at the local scale (less than 100,000 

square kilometers). Part Three describes multi-site projects and programs, in which generally the same 

ecosystem-oriented activity is carried out at a number of places distributed throughout the Region or 

nation. A national map of local-scale and large-scale project locations appears on page 5, and a Region-
specific map accompanies each Regional projects chapter. To allow each Regional chapter to stand alone, 

projects that extend across Regional boundaries are summarized under each Region in which they occur. 

Guidelines for Listing Projects in This Inventory

Focusing on ecosystems and place-based management is new to EPA. Although many projects with an 

ecosystem component have been initiated, few of them involve comprehensive ecosystem assessment or 

management at this early stage. Thus, in developing this Inventory, the Agency's Ecosystem Protection 

Task Force decided to be more inclusive than exclusive of projects that are just beginning to apply the 

principles of a place-based, ecosystem protection approach. Although meeting or planning to meet the 

listing guidelines was important, it was considered equally important to encourage and involve parties 

throughout the Agency who have nominated sites and have shown an interest in supporting the ecosystem 

approach. 

Agency personnel were provided the following guidelines about the kinds of projects considered suitable 

for the Inventory: 

● Place-based activity. Above all, projects must focus on a specific place (or places) and the 

environmental characteristics, problems, and management needs of that place. 

● Ecosystem protection. A significant element of the project should be the analysis of the 

ecosystem or major components of the ecosystem, or better yet, taking action to restore, enhance, 

protect, or improve the condition of the ecosystem. The best projects will focus on the functions of 

the whole system and its cross-media interrelationships although the project might take action on 

only a part of the whole. 

● Currently active project. Because the Inventory is meant to reflect the current status of EPA's 

involvement in ecosystem protection and the places where this is occurring, it will be limited to 

projects now active or about to become active. 

● An EPA role. EPA should have a defined role in the project, although this needn't be the lead role 

or even a "formal" role. The teamwork element is more important than whether EPA leads the 

project. EPA's involvement may include technical expertise, financial support, regulatory 

involvement, facilitation/advice, or other role. 

● Stakeholder involvement. At least some parties outside EPA that have an interest in the place 

should be involved. EPA's partners might include other agencies on the local to international level, 

the scientific or academic communities, private enterprise, citizens' groups, or individuals. 

● Goals and assessments. Ecosystem-related goals (as compared to purely human- welfare-related 

goals) should be identified. Better yet, the project includes an assessment that indicates some 

aspect of ecosystem condition and long-term sustainability. 

Background: The Edgewater Consensus

The goal of EPA's ecosystem protection approach is to use a place-based approach to improve the 
Agency's ability to protect, maintain, and restore the ecological integrity of the Nation's lands and waters, 

which includes the health of humans as well as plant and animal species. This approach will integrate 

environmental management with human needs, consider long-term ecosystem health, and highlight the 

positive correlations between economic prosperity and environmental well-being. 

On March 5, 1994, several of EPA's senior managers and scientists met in Edgewater, Maryland, to 

develop a strategy for realizing that goal. The workgroup described a vision for reorienting the Agency 

toward a "place-driven" focus; that is, the work of the Agency would be driven by the environmental 

needs of communities and ecosystems. For any given "place," EPA would establish a process for 

determining long-term ecological, economic, and social needs and would reorient its work to help meet 

those needs. Although this approach was already being demonstrated in a small number of places, the 

workgroup envisioned that, over time, the entire country would benefit from the approach. 

The Edgewater Consensus workgroup agreed upon several actions, to be carried out in the near term, that 

would advance EPA toward its goal. Among other plans, the workgroup decided to develop this 

Inventory: 

. . . headquarters and the regional personnel, supported by the Ecosystem Protection 

Workgroup, will conduct a "snapshot" review of the Agency's current efforts to protect 

ecosystems. As a part of the snapshot review, the Regional Administrators will inventory 

and evaluate ecosystem projects at a variety of scales across their region. Regions will 

work with other federal agencies, state and local agencies, private organizations, and 

citizen groups to identify places and set priorities. This review will include a discussion of 

what other agencies, private organizations and state, local and tribal governments are 

doing. Available inventories of ecosystem projects and background materials will be 

provided to support this effort.

Future of the Inventory

This document represents the starting point for the Inventory and several related EPA Regional and 

Headquarters activities. As any ongoing inventory is never complete and always subject to updates, there 

is a plan for this Inventory to be open-ended and periodically revised to cover EPA's active place-based 

projects. The design of the Inventory, however, might change based on how this Phase I report is used 

and, based on its usage, whether a different format would appear to be more useful. 

An interactive, electronic format for the Inventory might be appropriate as EPA moves toward 

widespread, regular use of its information systems. This Inventory report, for example, is currently 

available in hard copy or in electronic format on EPA's All-in-One Videotex (VTX) utility. Future 

updates of the Inventory might be exclusively electronic and distributed on disk or publicly accessible on 

VTX or EPA's various bulletin boards. Currently, however, VTX cannot display the Inventory's maps. A 

software package such as PC ArcView II could be used to integrate the Inventory's maps and project 

summaries into one interactive database. The geographic display or "view" capability would be useful to 
display an on-screen map of the location and distribution of projects, while the relational database files 

could hold the project summaries. Users might wish to query the system for information on a specific 

project, a geographic area of interest, an ecosystem type or project type, stakeholder involvement, or other 

characteristic. 

Regions might find it useful to expand this national Inventory and develop more detailed Regional 

inventories and databases on their ecosystem protection activities. For example, Region IX's Water 

Management Division is currently working with many stakeholders on a comprehensive, computerized 

inventory of watershed protection projects. More than 250 watershed projects are currently under way in 

this Region. Most of these involve EPA and are focusing to some degree on ecosystem protection. Region 

IX plans to use its inventory to assist in setting geographic priorities, targeting available resources to 

support projects in priority areas, and coordinating action with state, local, and other federal participants. 

In addition, Region IX has worked with project stakeholders to provide watershed management skills 

training based on in-depth case studies of selected watershed projects. 

Like the Regions, the Agency as a whole will also need to determine whether a truly comprehensive 

Inventory is desirable. For example, because they are actions related to ecosystem condition, should every 

wetlands permit action, every Clean Lakes grant, or every endangered species consultation be included? 

Which national or Regional programs need the Inventory, and what data are most useful to them? How 

can ecological project data be integrated with other EPA databases currently in use? These and other 

design issues will be considered over the coming year as the Inventory is used and EPA's Regional and 

national programs gain experience in place-based management and ecosystem protection. 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Part One: Large-Scale Ecosystem 

Protection Efforts

The following pages summarize the largest of EPA's ecosystem projects, each covering over 100,000 

square kilometers. Many of these large-scale projects are known as geographic initiatives. EPA's 

investment in these large-scale initiatives is considerable, often representing millions of dollars of annual 

funding, dedicated staff, and a long-term commitment. In these initiatives EPA has usually teamed with 

several partners, including other federal and state agencies, to make the project possible. 

Another common characteristic of the large-scale projects is the focus on social, economic, and 

ecological concerns surrounding a large, complex, highly beneficial, and irreplaceable ecosystem. As in 

the case of the Chesapeake Bay watershed or the Great Lakes, the people of these areas identify with and 

value the ecosystem and its health and maintenance. For this reason, the larger initiatives have great 

potential as a model for integrating human and environmental concerns in place-based management. 

List of sites

The large-scale projects in the Inventory at this time include: 

● Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System Project

● Chesapeake Bay Program

● Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale Assessments

● Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership Project

● Colorado River Program

● EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment

● EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment

● Great Lakes Program
● Great Plains Program

● Gulf of Maine Program

● Gulf of Mexico Program

● Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project

● Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative

● Mid-Atlantic Highlands Program (MAHA)

● Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)

● New England Resource Protection Project

● Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Management Research Initiative

● Prairie Potholes/Missouri Coteau Ecoregion Assessment

● Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) Ecosystem Assessment

● President's Forest Plan (Pacific Northwest)

● Rio Grande Basin Landscape-Scale Assessment

● Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Watershed Project

● San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary

● South Florida Geographic Initiative

● Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)

● Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale 

Assessment

● Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)

● Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency Cooperation on Ecosystem Management (ICEM)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System 

Project
Size and location: The project covers 246,000 square kilometers (95,000 square miles) in the following 

states: New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina. 

Nature of EPA involvement:

● Interagency Agreement, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Principal Investigator Joseph Bachman, 

Conceptual Model Building and Database Support for Modeling Groundwater Systems in the 

Chesapeake Bay Region, 10/01/93- 09/30/94, $80,000. 

● Cooperative Agreement, University of Minnesota, Principal Investigator Otto Strack, Coastal 

Aquifer Modeling in High Performance Computing, 10/01/94-09/30/96, $200,000. 

● Cooperative Agreement, Indiana University, Principal Investigator Henk Haitjema, 

Threedimensional Unconfined Aquifer Modeling in High Performance Computing, Project Period: 

10/01/94-09/30/96, $200,000. 

● Project Officer: Stephen Kraemer, U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Robert S. Kerr 

Environmental Research Laboratory (ORD/RSKERL)Ada. The Project Officer has an In-house 

Research Project supporting this effort, including an on-site contractor work assignment. 

● High Performance Computing Contact: Joan Novak, U.S. EPA Office of Research and 

Development, Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory (ORD/AREALRTP). 
Organization that initiated project:

USEPA/ORD/AREAL-RTP, High Performance Computing Initiative 

Major environmental problems: Coastal estuaries are threatened by land use practices that impact 

shallow ground water quantity and quality. The shallow ground-water system provides a hidden and slowmoving pathway for contaminants from source to discharge area. Both point and nonpoint sources of 

toxics and nutrients have a significant impact on the estuary ecosystems. Overpumping of aquifers can 

lead to saltwater intrusion along coastal areas. 

Actions taken or proposed: High-performance computing tools are needed to support place-based 

decision making involving large ecosystems. An integrated, supra-regional scale ground water modeling 

system is being developed on massive parallel processing supercomputers using analytic element solution 

techniques and scientific visualizations. A demonstration is planned for the Atlantic Coastal Plain shallow 

aquifer system. The tool will potentially be applicable to the analysis of salt-water intrusion, nonpoint 

source pollution, hazardous waste site risk analysis, point source toxic loadings, and wellhead protection. 

Research project reports and a demonstration of the modeling system will result from the work. 

Stakeholders:

States (New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina) 

U.S. EPA 

USGS 

Chesapeake Bay Program 

Contact:

Stephen R. Kraemer

U.S. EPA/RSKERL

P.O. Box 1198

Ada, OK 74821

(405) 436-8549

FAX: (405) 436-8703

E-mail: kraemer@ad3100.ada.epa.gov

ALL-IN-ONE: EPA8029 or

KRAEMER.STEPHEN

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Chesapeake Bay Program
Size and location: The Chesapeake Bay's watershed covers 166,000 square kilometers (64,000 square 

miles) and encompasses parts of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, 

and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake Bay is the Nation's largest and most productive estuary. 

The ecosystem contains the 320-kilometer-long (200-mile-long) Chesapeake Bay and 150 rivers, creeks, 

and streams, most of which flow through privately owned lands. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The Chesapeake Bay Program is a cooperative effort of the states, the 

District of Columbia, and the federal government. In 1975 Congress directed EPA to undertake a 

comprehensive investigation into the causes of the Bay's decline. The research findings and 

recommended remedies led to the signing of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. EPA, through the 

Chesapeake Bay Program Office, provides leadership, administrative, technical, financial, and 

information support to a network of regional committees, subcommittees, and work groups that runs the 

Bay Program. The Administrator of EPA represents the federal government within the agreement. 

Organizations that initiated project: The Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in 1983, in response to 

action by the U.S. Congress, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the States of Maryland, 

Virginia, and Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. In that 

compact, the partners agreed to improve and protect water quality and living resources for the 

Chesapeake Bay estuarine system. 

Major environmental problems: The Chesapeake Bay Agreement and its amendments include 

declarations of intent to respond to a series of ecosystem problems. These commitments focus on nutrient 

enrichment from all sources (including air deposition); population growth and development; habitat loss 

and degradation (including submerged aquatic vegetation); toxic substances; and interstate fishery 

management. 

Actions taken or proposed: The Bay's ecosystem management approach relies on a network of protective 

agencies and private groups, voluntary actions, laws, and regulation. The regional framework focuses on 

the integration of all the component parts of the ecosystem, including the biological, physical, economic, 

natural, and cultural factors at play. Several examples of existing efforts include: 

● Nutrient Reduction: The major initiative of the Chesapeake Bay Program concerns nutrient 

reduction. In 1987 the signatory jurisdictions agreed to reduce nutrients entering the bay by 40 

percent by the year 2000 and retain those levels into the next century. The bay states and the 

District of Columbia have agreed to develop and implement tributary watershed specific nutrient 

reduction strategies in order to achieve nutrient loading targets. All of the jurisdictions have 

completed draft "Tributary Strategies" and are at different stages in the process of developing the 

final strategies. 

● Toxics Management: The Chesapeake Bay's Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy 

focuses on multi-jurisdictional efforts by directing reduction and prevention actions toward 

regions with known toxic problems (the Patapsco, Anacostia, and Elizabeth Rivers) as well as 
areas where significant potential exists for toxic impacts on living resources and habitats. 

Regional Action Plans are being developed for these three designated "Regions of Concern." 

● Sustainable Development: In cooperation with The Countryside Institute, The Alliance for the 

Chesapeake Bay, and 30 other public agencies and private groups, the Chesapeake Bay Program 

has established the Chesapeake Bay Region International Countryside Stewardship Exchange to 

encourage public and private collaboration on land conservation and community development 

within the ecosystem. The Exchange provides Chesapeake Bay communities with technical 

assistance teams. composed of experts from the United States, Canada, France, and the United 

Kingdom. The purpose of these efforts, which have focused on three regions (Virginia's Eastern 

Shore, Maryland's Chester River watershed, and Pennsylvania's Cumberland County) is to 

stimulate voluntary action to achieve local economic sustainability and the protection of 

community character and ecosystem values. 

● Habitat Restoration: A series of habitat restoration projects address numerous problems. The 

removal of blockages and construction of fishways and fish elevators to create fish passages has 

reopened 280 kilometers (175 miles) of river to anadromous fish in the watershed. Oyster reefs 

have been created in various areas throughout the bay. The return of submerged aquatic 

vegetation (SAV) is inseparably linked to water quality improvement and nutrient reduction. 

Areas of the bay where SAV is now growing have increased by 75 percent since 1984. Interstate 

fishery management plans have been prepared and have assisted with the recovery of shellfish and 

finfish species such as the striped bass or rockfish. 

● Federal Ecosystem Management: In response to the National Performance Review and 

Chesapeake Bay Program goals, an agreement was reached among 23 federal agencies to take a 

collaborative approach to fully implement new national directives on ecosystem management. 

The goals of the effort include promoting environmental restoration, preventing environmental 

degradation, promoting sustainable development, reducing costs, and maintaining the long-term 

health of the Nation's ecological systems. 

Stakeholders: Chesapeake Bay Program ecosystem management involves all levels of government, the 

private sector, scientists, landowners, and citizens. In the bay region these interests are coupled with 

three governors, 40 members of Congress, thousands of state legislators and local elected officials, 13 

federal agencies, 4 interstate agencies, and more than 700 citizen groups that play a role in the restoration 

effort. The formal Bay Program has established more than 50 subcommittees and work groups to ensure 

that all of the interests are represented and that the goals of the program are ultimately achieved. 

Contact:

Bill Matuszeski

Chesapeake Bay Program Office

U.S. EPA

410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109

Annapolis, MD 21403

(410) 267-5700

FAX: (410) 267-5777
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

EMAP Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic 

Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale 

Assessments
Size and location: The project area includes southern New York, southern and western New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, northeastern North Carolina, Delaware, and 

Washington, DC. 

Nature of EPA involvement: This part of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

(EMAP) will conduct assessments of status and trends of landscapes and medium-sized watersheds and 

relate findings to conditions in a wide number of aquatic and terrestrial resources. EMAP-Landscapes is 

conducting research on landscape pattern indicators that are derived from remote sensing and other 

existing data. Results from assessments will be useful in generating alternatives for ecosystem 

management and in conducting ecological risk assessments. For example, research relating landscape 

status and trends to stream ecological condition will help determine the scales at which ecological 

resources should be restored. EMAP-Landscapes proposes to use Landsat TM satellite data and 3-date 

Landsat MSS data to address landscape change. 

Organization that initiated the project:

U.S. EPA EMAP 

Major environmental problems: Degradation and alteration of critical ecological components and 
processes due to the magnitude and distribution of land uses have occurred over the MidAtlantic region. 

These alterations have affected several important ecological resources within the Mid-Atlantic region, 

including streams, wetlands, forests, estuaries, and breeding birds and other attributes of biological 

diversity. Landscape- scale processes that have been altered include fire, water flow and discharge, and 

extinction/ colonization. These alterations have resulted in declines in water quality and certain 

components of biological diversity and have increased the risk of pest outbreak and catastrophic 

flooding. However, the extent and distribution of these alterations across the Mid-Atlantic region are 

currently unknown. Further, no information is available on relative degrees of risk and scales of 

impairment. 

Actions taken or proposed: EMAP-Landscapes is proposing two primary activities: (1) landscape 

indicator development, which can be applied to multiple-scale ecological assessments, and (2) an 

assessment of status and trends in landscapes as related to biological diversity and integrity, watershed 

integrity (water quality, quantity, and timing), and landscape resilience (the ability of a landscape or 

watershed to maintain options for ecological goods and services in the face of combinations of 

anthropogenic and natural disturbance). Landscape indicator research has already begun within the MidAtlantic region and will proceed through FY96. Starting in mid-FY95, EMAP-Landscapes will assess 

status and trends in landscapes and watersheds over the entire region. Part of this assessment will include 

relating individual ecological resources, including forest, streams, estuaries, and a variety of wildlife 

habitats, with landscape pattern at multiple scales. The outcome of this assessment should be a 

fundamental understanding of the scales at which landscape change influences different ecological 

resources. It is EMAP-Landscapes' hypothesis that different resources will have different scaling 

relationships with landscapes. This information will be key in understanding the range of risks 

influencing ecological resources, and in deriving approaches to improve existing conditions. 

Stakeholders:

Desert Research Institute 

General public 

Individual States 

National Biological Survey 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Oak Ridge National Lab 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

U.S. EPA EMAP 
U.S. EPA Office of Water 

U.S. EPA Region III 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Contact:

K. Bruce Jones

U.S. EPA/EMSL-LV/MSD

P.O. Box 93478

Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478

(702) 798-2671

FAX: (702) 798-2208

E-mail: msdkbj@vegas1.las.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership 

Project
Size and location: Region covered by western Colorado, southeastern and southern Utah, northern 

Arizona, and northwestern New Mexico. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is participating as a partner with other federal agencies and state, 

tribal, and local organizations (public and private). 

Organizations that initiated project:

EPA and the National Park Service (NPS) 

Major environmental problems:

● Conflicts between economic and environmental interests 

Actions taken or proposed:

● Execution of Interagency Agreement in August 1994 between EPA and NPS, Rocky Mountain 

Region. 
● Colorado Plateau Forum Steering Committee - Consortium of more than 20 entities representing 

federal, state, local, and private interests that joined together to plan and host a Town Hall 

meeting on "The Future of the Colorado Plateau: Choice or Chance?" in Moab, Utah, March 3-4, 

1995. 

● Meeting of interested researchers in May 1994 to determine who is doing what type of research, 

where, and how on the Colorado Plateau. This resulted in the expression of interest by the 

National Biological Survey (NBS) - Social, Economic, and Institutional Section in pursuing 

research on the Colorado Plateau as an ecosystem. 

● Agreement with NBS - Colorado Plateau Research Unit to serve as lead in developing, storing, 

and making available the ecological information. 

● Commitment from NBS - Social, Economic, and Institutional Section to three complete fiscal 

years of research on the Colorado Plateau at $1.225 million. 

● Development of a draft discussion paper in the National Park Service on the principles of 

ecosystem management. 

● Development of a draft vision/strategy for implementing ecosystem management in the Rocky 

Mountain Region. 

● Development of a draft "cluster organization report" for the Colorado Plateau Cluster, which 

incorporates some of the principles of ecosystem management as well as the elements of the NPS 

Restructuring Document. 

● Commitment by NPS to fund a bibliography of gray literature on the Colorado Plateau with a 

value of $85,000. 

● Commitment by NPS and Northern Arizona University to fund a needs assessment of Park Units 

on the Colorado Plateau, valued at approximately $50,000. 

● Commitment by NPS to fund research on the Mexican Spotted Owl, an indicator species on the 

Colorado Plateau, valued at $238,000. 

● Commitment by NPS to fund EPA's efforts to prepare audit procedures that can be executed by 

students to evaluate the effectiveness of pollution prevention training. 

Stakeholders:

City of Farmington 

Colorado River Energy Distributors Association 

Economic Development District of Southwest Colorado 

Five County Association of Governments 

Grand Canyon River Guides 

Grand Canyon Trust 
Grand County Commission 

Hopi Tribe 

National Park Service 

Northern Arizona Council of Governments 

Northern Arizona University 

Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments 

San Juan Forum 

Southeastern Utah Association of Governments 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. EPA 

U.S. Forest Service 

Upper Colorado River Commission 

Western Area Power Administration 

Western Network 

Contact:

Doug Johnson

U.S. EPA Region VIII (8PM-SI)

999 18th Street

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 293-1469

FAX: (303) 293-1647

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Colorado River Program
Size and location: The Colorado River basin covers about 632,000 square kilometers (244,000 square 

miles) in seven states including west-central Colorado, eastern Utah, western Arizona, southwestern 

Wyoming, southeastern Nevada and California, and western New Mexico. 

Nature of EPA involvement:

● Technical assistance 

● Participation in Coordination Groups 

● Approvals of salinity standards 

● Funding in limited situations 

● NPDES permits issued with salinity limits 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Congress 

Major environmental problems:

● Increasing salinity levels in the river and the effects on agricultural soils in Arizona, California, 

and Mexico and on municipal/industrial water supplies in Nevada, Arizona, and California 

● Loss of wetlands 

Actions taken or proposed: Colorado River salinity standards, including a plan of implementation and 

numeric criteria, were developed by the states and approved by EPA. The plan of implementation is 

designed to maintain the salinity concentrations at or below the numeric criteria established at three 

lower basin monitoring locations and to meet commitments to Mexico. The plan of implementation 

includes policies used in all basin states for implementing the salinity standards through the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program and salinity control projects implemented 

through federal and state funding primarily in the upper basin states. Because improved irrigation 

systems for salinity control on agricultural lands can dry up existing irrigation-induced wetlands, 

mitigation of wetland losses is required for Bureau of Reclamation salinity control projects. The U.S. 

Department of Agriculture manages a voluntary wetland replacement program for its salinity control 

program. 

Salinity control activities are coordinated through an Interagency Salinity Control Coordinating 

Committee; the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, composed of representatives of the seven 

basin states; and other committees. 

Stakeholders:
Citizens of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming 

Mexico 

State wildlife agencies 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Jack Barnett

CO River Basin Salinity Control Forum

106 W. 500 South Suite 101

Bountiful, UT 84010

(801) 292-4663

FAX: (801) 524-6320

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment
Size and location: Northeastern United States, including the States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and New Jersey. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA (Office of Research and Development, New England Region, and 

Region II) designed the study and is analyzing the results. 

Organization that initiated project:

EPA/ORD EMAP 

Major environmental problems:

● Acidification 

● Eutrophication 

● Nonpoint source pollution 

Actions being taken or proposed: EMAP monitoring teams measured a suite of indicators of ecosystem 

condition at a probability-based sample of lakes across the northeastern states in a monitoring study 

designed to assess the general condition of lakes across the region. The following data were collected on 

over 300 lakes in the northeast from 1991 to 1994: 

Biological Indicators or Measurements Fish assemblages including exotic species: 

● Riparian breeding bird assemblages 

● Zooplankton assemblages 

● Benthic Macroinvertebrate assemblages including exotic species 

● Sediment Diatom Assemblages 

● Trophic State Measures - chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, transparency 

● Aquatic macrophytes including exotic species 

Chemical measures 

● Fish tissue contaminants 

● Water chemistry - nutrients, suspended sediments, cations, anions, pH, Acid Neutralizing 

Capacity, temperature, Dissolved Oxygen 

Physical measures 

● Lake riparian habitat 
Watershed measures 

● Landcover - % agriculture, % forests, % urban, % wetlands, etc. 

● Road density 

● Human population density 

● Ecoregions 

● Geology 

● Fish stocking and management practices 

Stakeholders:

EPA New England Region and Region II 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New 

Jersey 

Contact:

Steve Paulsen

U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory

200 SW 35th Street

Corvallis, OR 97333

(503) 754-4428

FAX: (503) 754-4716

E-mail: paulsen@heart.cor.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream 

Assessment
Size and location: Mid-Atlantic Highlands, covering the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 

Virginia, West Virginia. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA (Office of Research and Development and Region III) designed the 

study, is collecting the data, and is analyzing the results 

Organization that initiated project:

EPA/ORD EMAP and Region III 

Major environmental problems:

● Acidification 

● Habitat alteration 

● Nonpoint sources of pollution 

Actions being taken or proposed: EMAP monitoring teams measured a suite of indicators of ecosystem 

condition at a probability-based sample of streams across the mid-Atlantic states in a monitoring study 
designed to assess the general condition of streams across the region. This study collected the following 

information on approximately 500 stream locations during 1993 to 1994: 

Biological Indicators or Measurements: 

● Fish assemblages including exotic species 

● Benthic Macroinvertebrate assemblages including exotic species 

● Periphyton Assemblages 

● Sediment microbial respiration 

Chemical measures 

● Fish tissue contaminants 

● Water chemistry - nutrients, suspended sediments, cations, anions, pH, Acid Neutralizing 

Capacity, temperature, Dissolved Oxygen 

Physical measures 

● Stream physical habitat 

● Riparian habitat 

Watershed measures 

● Landcover - % agriculture, % forests, % urban, % wetlands, etc. 

● Road density 

● Human population density 

● Ecoregions 

● Geology 

● Fish stocking and management practices 

Stakeholders:

EPA Region III 

States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contacts:

Steve Paulsen
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory

200 S.W. 35th Street

Corvallis, OR 97333

(503) 754-4428

FAX: (503) 754-4716

E-mail: paulsen@heart.cor.epa.gov

Tom DeMoss

U.S. EPA Region III

Central Regional Lab

Power Tech. Center RR 450

201 Defense Highway

Annapolis, MD 21401

(410) 573-6839

Fax: (410) 573-6888

E-mail: demoss.tom@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Great Lakes Program
Size and location: By area, the Great Lakes constitute the world's largest area of surface fresh water 

(246,000 square kilometers/95,000 square miles, 23 quadrillion liters/6 quadrillion gallons), holding 18 

percent of the world's supply). The five Great Lakes and their drainage areas encompass all or parts of 

eight states (New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) and 

the Province of Ontario. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The EPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) has 

responsibility for meeting the expanded Great Lakes toxics and nutrient monitoring and Control 

requirements under section 118 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, including responsibilities specified 

in the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 (GLCPA) and U.S. commitments under the Great 

Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) of 1978, as amended; and responsibilities under section 112 

of the Clean Air Act amendments. 

Organization that initiated project: The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) steers and 

coordinates a consortium of local, state, federal, and nongovernmental organizations in ecosystem 

management and priority setting. The Great Lakes 5-Year Strategy, developed jointly by GLNPO and its 

multistate, multiagency partners and built on the foundation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 

with Canada, provides the agenda for Great Lakes ecosystem management. 

Major environmental problems:

● Contaminated fish and wildlife 

● Contaminated bottom sediments 

● Threatened habitats ("endangered" or "threatened" classification for 52 species of plants and 

animals within the region) 

● Non-native species (More than 130 non-native species have been introduced to the Great Lakes 

since 1800; recent invaders include zebra mussels and river ruffe) 

● Vulnerable native fish populations 

● Excessive phosphorus 

Actions taken or proposed: Federal, state, and tribal partners developed the Great Lakes 5-Year Strategy 

to jointly address the problems of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The strategy focuses on three overarching 

goals: reducing releases of toxicants to the environment, protecting and restoring habitat, and protecting 

human/ecosystem species health. 

In 1989, in recognition of the vulnerability of the Great Lakes to bioaccumulative chemicals, EPA and 

the states began the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, a precedent-setting, cooperative effort to 

establish common regulatory practices for the Great Lakes waters. Proposed guidance for minimum 

water quality standards, anti-degradation policies, and implementing procedures was published in the 

Federal Register in April 1993. 
Pursuant to a Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Action Plan, launched by EPA and the Great Lakes states 

in 1991, source reduction projects are under way with the auto and printing industries. Under the 

National 33/50 Program, Great Lakes manufacturers have already surpassed the Agency's interim 33 

percent reduction goal. 

In 1993, EPA and its partners initiated a Virtual Elimination Pilot Project to analyze opportunities for 

achieving virtual elimination through source reduction of targeted pollutants. Two pollutants, 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury, have thus far been selected for analysis. 

Sediment cleanups are being accomplished at numerous sites across the basin under EPA's regulatory 

authority. Examples include the December 1992 Gill Creek cleanup of 5000 cubic meters (6500 cubic 

yards) of PCB-contaminated sediment (eliminating 20 percent of total annual PCB load to Lake Ontario 

through the Niagara River); the 1990-93 Waukegan Harbor Superfund removal of over 1 million pounds 

of PCB-contaminated sediment; and multimillion- dollar consent decrees in northwest Indiana requiring 

sediment characterization and cleanup. As a follow-up to the completed Assessment and Remediation of 

Contaminated Sediments program, GLNPO is supporting states with contaminated sediment 

characterization and assessment as the necessary first step in remediating contaminated sediments. Air 

toxics monitoring stations have been established on each of the Great Lakes to collect data on nutrients, 

toxic metals, and organic contaminants. Two years of intensive monitoring of air, water, sediments, and 

biota began in 1994 on Lake Michigan. From such work, EPA and its partners will design load reduction 

strategies. 

EPA, Environment Canada, the states, and the Province of Ontario announced the Lake Superior 

Binational Program in 1991, one aspect of which is the designation of nine bioaccumulative pollutants 

for "zero discharge." The program will also identify beneficial use impairments and restore and protect 

the basin's ecosystem. 

The watershed approach that EPA and its partners are promoting in Lakes Ontario, Superior, and 

Michigan is embodied in the Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) for each of these lakes. A similar 

effort has commenced in Lake Erie and will be taken for Lake Huron. In addition, Remedial Action Plans 

are being developed and implemented on a smaller "watershed" level for the 43 Great Lakes Areas of 

Concern. 

EPA is working with its partners, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), states, tribes, and 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), to restore and protect habitat within the Great Lakes consistent with a 

TNC report, The Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Ecosystem: Issues and 

Opportunities. The report, funded in part by EPA, identifies important habitat for achieving biological 

diversity and ecological integrity in the Great Lakes ecosystem. GLNPO has funded some 70 habitat 

protection/restoration projects over the last 3 years. Projects are under way at locations such as Hamilton 

Lake/Fish Creek, Kakagon/Bad River Sloughs, the Maumee River, Allouez Bay, Irondequoit Bay, Black 

River, St. Louis River, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay. These demonstrations reflect a variety of activities 

including on-the-ground restoration, public participation, and education. GLNPO can provide 
information regarding each of these efforts upon request; however, the following project summaries best 

illustrate the watershed work GLNPO is currently supporting: 

● Hamilton Lake/Fish Creek (Steuben County, Indiana) combines wetland restorations by USFWS, 

agricultural land treatment practices through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its state and 

local partners, and actions of TNC. Resultant actions will improve habitat for species of mussels 

(some endangered) and fish. 

● Kakagon/Bad River Sloughs Watershed Demonstration Project (involving the Bad River Band of 

the Chippewa Nation and TNC) centers around a 6500-hectare (16,000-acre) wetland complex - 

the largest undeveloped wetland complex on Lake Superior. The project will protect and restore 

fish spawning ground and a waterfowl marsh inhabited by numerous rare species; model 

restoration and protection for more profoundly disturbed sites; explore sustainable development 

possibilities for the watershed; and demonstrate possibilities for ecologically viable activities. 

● The Glacial Lake Chicago Crescent, a multifaceted initiative in northeast Illinois and northwest 

Indiana emphasizing sustainable economic development, is another major project that is currently 

under way. This initiative includes: 

● A Housing and Urban Development/EPA Demonstration Project to rehabilitate vacant buildings 

for housing and reuse empty lots for native garden projects. 

● TNC's Mighty Acorn Project, which incorporates in-the-field education about ecological 

processes including hands-on restoration for children. 

● Organization by the Indiana Nature Conservancy, working with the Illinois Nature Conservancy 

field office, of a volunteer stewardship network to encourage public participation in stewardship 

of northwest Indiana natural area sites requiring ecological protection and restoration. 

● City Space developing open space policies for empty Chicago lots, through which lots will be 

redeveloped into parks and garden space for residents. 

Partners in initiative projects will include TNC, local school districts, park districts and forest preserves, 

U.S. Forest Service, USFWS, and many others. 

Actions to control introductions of nonnative species include Coast Guard requirements for mandatory 

ballast water exchange, EPA regulation of chemical control, USFWS and state testing of control 

techniques, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration educational efforts. 

Stakeholders:

23 Indian tribes 

Department of the Interior (National Park Service and National Biological Survey) 

Forest preserves 

Great Lakes Fisheries Commission 
Illinois 

Indiana 

Industry 

Labor 

Local citizens 

Local school districts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

New York 

Nongovernmental organizations 

Ohio 

Park districts 

Pennsylvania 

The Nature Conservancy 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Coast Guard 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
U.S. Geological Survey 

Wisconsin 

Contact:

James Giattina

GLPNO (G-9J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604-3590

(312) 886-4040

FAX: (312) 353-2018/886-2403

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Great Plains Program
Size and location: The Great Plains span America's heartland and encompass parts of 13 states (Iowa, 

Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Montana, Minnesota), 3 Canadian provinces (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta), 4 EPA Regions 

(V, VI, VII, and VIII) and lands under the jurisdiction of over 60 Native American tribes. The area is 

bounded on the west by the Rocky Mountains, on the east by the Mississippi River valley and eastern 

deciduous forests, and on the north and south by the former extent of grasslands. 

The Great Plains ecosystem was once the largest grassland on earth, covering over a million square 

miles. Today, many linkages continue to exist within this vast area - among natural communities, people, 

cultural, historical and political traditions and economy. There are also common challenges - for 

environmental protection, economic development, and future human well-being. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is involved in the Great Plains region at two scales. The first is on-theground, at the community level, as a catalyst for programs that integrate protection of human health and 

the environment within the Plains states through place-based environmental management, common sense, 

innovation, sound science, and partnerships. Currently, EPA is focusing efforts on two priority places, the 

Platte River Watershed and the Omaha Stretch of the Missouri River. EPA is also working at the 

landscape scale in partnership with others to define indicators, to monitor the health of ecosystems, to 

develop tools for sharing data and information, and to facilitate forums that develop strategies for 

sustainable development. Region VII is the lead Region in concert with Regions VI and VIII. A Great 

Plains Program (GPP) Office is located in Region VII. 

EPA is also a leader in the Great Plains Initiative (GPI), a broad-based coalition of government agencies, 

other public organizations, industry, and the public whose goal is to draw attention to issues of 

biodiversity and sustain-ability in the Great Plains region and provide for coordination of response in 

priority areas. 

Organization that initiated project: EPA initiated its Great Plains Program to address the environmental 

threats to people and places that were recognized during the 1990 Comparative Risk Assessment. The 

Plains were selected as a geographic region because they offer an opportunity to act before a crisis 

develops and because they offer a unique opportunity to address an interconnected set of scientific and 

policy considerations in the context of sustainable economy and environment. 

The Western Governors have recognized the importance of addressing sustainability of natural resources 

and economy throughout the Great Plains region and organized the GPI to cooperatively develop new 

tools and management strategies to meet emerging needs. The Western Governors' Association 

coordinates GPI activities with state and provincial governments and among the various GPI partners. 

The White House Interagency Task Force on Ecosystem Management has also recently designated the 

Great Plains as one of three regional "laboratories" in the country in which policy makers, scientists, 

resource managers, and private citizens will test new strategies for managing and protecting the 
environment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is the lead federal agency for this component. All three 

efforts are complementary in scope and purpose. 

Major environmental problems:

● Diminished water quality induced by toxins from industrial and agricultural sources and sediments 

from poor land management practices. 

● Loss of soil productivity from erosion of topsoil, changes in pH from irrigation practices, and 

overgrazing. 

● Loss of biodiversity - 214 threatened or endangered species, more than a 50 percent decline of 

endemic songbird species, more than a 75 percent decline of grassland nesting birds, epidemic 

diseases in waterfowl. 

● Loss of contiguous natural landscapes - patches not large enough to support native or migratory 

species; less than 1 percent of native tall grass and less than 70 percent of short grass prairie 

remain, scattered in islands; less than 10 percent of central flyway rainwater basin wetlands 

remain. 

● Devastating floods as a result of structural alteration of stream channels and draining of wetlands. 

● Declining ground water resources. The largest fresh water body in the world, the Ogalalla aquifer 

lying beneath the Great Plains, has lost 3-30 meters (10-100 feet) of depth to the water table in last 

30 years from pumping for irrigation. 

● Excessive use of pesticides and nutrients (e.g., median concentration of atrazine in streams 

exceeds EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)). 

● Loss of rural population and declining rural economies - 50 percent rural population decline 1940-

1970; an additional 80 percent drop 1970-1980 and remaining rural population are aging. 

● Loss of natural areas, wildlife, and other aesthetic values, making economic potential for tourism 

vulnerable. 

● Threats from global climate change - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change anticipates that 

by 2030, warming trends in Central North America could result in temperatures considerably 

higher than historical records. 

Actions taken or proposed: Beyond the conduct of its base programs, EPA Region VII has invested its 

resources in four areas. Grants or cooperative agreements have been employed to stimulate a broad 

partnership base through these activities: 

● Policy and Partnership Development - Convening federal, state, and local agencies, academic 

organizations, and private stakeholders in science and policy forums on the Great Plains 

ecosystem to promote consensus on vision and strategy; grants to the Western Governors' 

Association to stimulate state action and stakeholder buy-in; designation of a small, core EPA 

staff to bring consistent, senior leadership to the effort. In the future, EPA plans to add a 

component to the GPP that will evaluate existing public policies in various places in the Plains to 

determine whether legislative or administrative changes are needed to be conducive to sustainable 

human activity. 

● Science and Data - EPA has sponsored The Nature Conservancy in a rigorous program to identify 
species and habitat at risk, resulting in the designation of "action areas," which will help prioritize 

the place-driven work of the program. Together with ORD, Region VII has launched a project to 

collect and integrate environmental and other resource data from multiple public and private 

sources, and to make that information accessible to all stakeholders. This project supports a wide 

partnership of international and domestic agencies, organized by EPA to share data on the state of 

the Great Plains. A first-cut "data atlas," developed by Region VII's Office of Integrated 

Environmental Analysis, demonstrates the power of integrating and geographically displaying 

these data. An EPA-funded agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) will further the 

ability to understand the dynamics of the hydrological systems of the Plains. And, the Region is 

working with its research partners to refine and in some cases develop models that will enable 

better assessment of environmental status and selection of management strategies. EPA plans to 

continue to foster the development of tools and information that will support decision-making at 

multiple levels. 

● Education and Outreach - Through a series of seed grants, EPA Region VII is encouraging 

development of educational programs designed to enhance public appreciation and awareness of 

the Great Plains resources and environmental threats to that ecosystem. The EPA-sponsored 

H2Omaha Initiative will increase student awareness of the Missouri River by using the river and 

its Omaha area watershed as a living laboratory for science education in local school districts. 

EPA is also working with the National Wildlife Federation to develop teaching tools about Great 

Plains natural resources. EPA plans to continue outreach activities including using focus groups to 

learn how citizens on the Plains think about environmental issues, assisting with state-led public 

awareness campaigns, and sponsoring development of user-friendly data networks. 

● Places - Region VII is currently concentrating its sustainable ecosystem effort on two visible and 

threatened places: the Central Platte River and the Omaha stretch of the Missouri River system. 

As one of many partners and stakeholders, EPA is delivering its expertise, tools, and resources to 

these place-based environmental initiatives. EPA Regions VI and VIII are participating, and in 

some cases leading, similar experiments in environmental management focused on other places in 

the Great Plains. Future efforts include joining a select number of interdisciplinary teams to 

provide EPA expertise and resources for carrying out place-based programs. 

Stakeholders:

13 Great Plains States 

Environment Canada 

International Coalition for Land and Water Stewardship 

National Association of Conservation Districts 

National Farmers' Union 
Provincial governments 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Department of Defense 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

The Great Plains Agriculture Council 

The International Fish and Wildlife Association 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Western Governors' Association 

Tribal leaders 

Contact:

Kerry B. Herndon

Great Plains Program Office

EPA Region VII

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, Kansas 66101

(913) 551-7286

FAX: (913) 551-7956

E-mail: herndon.kerry@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Gulf of Maine Program
Size and location: The Gulf of Maine is the body of water bordered by Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 

Maine, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and extending seaward to Georges Bank and Brown Bank. This 

covers more than 130,000 square kilometers (50,000 square miles) of water and is drained by an equally 

massive watershed. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has been a member of the Gulf of Maine Working Group for more 

than 5 years and has undertaken projects to support the program. EPA's involvement will increase in 

FY95, in response to the $1.9 million Congress appropriated for the Gulf of Maine Program. 

Organizations that initiated project: The states and provinces that border the Gulf of Maine initiated the 

project, and the program's governing body (the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment) is 

still composed principally of state and provincial agencies. 

Major environmental problems: Given the size of the waterbody, it is no surprise that major 

environmental problems run the gamut from toxics and bacterial contamination to nutrient enrichment, 

habitat destruction, and overfishing. The problems on which the program has focused most to date 

include contaminants from point sources, marine debris, and the identification of critical habitats. In the 

coming years, the program will focus most on habitat protection. 

Actions taken or proposed: The program has undertaken a number of projects, including a pilot 

multijurisdictional monitoring program, a marine debris control program in a few ports, preparation of an 

inventory of contaminant loading from point sources, and identification of critical habitats. The program 

has also conducted a number of workshops on a variety of subjects, ranging from aquaculture to public 

outreach. 

Stakeholders:

State, provincial, federal agencies 

Marine science institutions 

A limited number of nongovernmental organizations 

Contact:

Jo-Ann Vizziello

EPA New England Region (WQE)

JFK Building

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 565-4872
FAX: (617) 565-4940

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Gulf of Mexico Program
Size and location: The Gulf of Mexico, an area of 1.63 million square kilometers (630,000 square miles), 

abuts five Gulf Coast states and has a watershed area of 4.69 million square kilometers (1.81 million 

square miles) in the United States. About two-thirds of the total area of Mexico is also within the Gulf 

watershed area. 

Nature of EPA involvement:

● Original program concept 

● Lead agency for program 

● EPA is the single largest source of funding for the program 

● EPA has lead roles in a number of the program's committees, and a participatory role in the 

others. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems:

● Loss of coastal wetlands and seagrass beds 

● Endangered commercial and recreational fisheries and shellfish beds 

● Nutrients 

● Toxic substances 

● Pathogens 

● Trash on beaches 

● Impaired coastal habitats that support migratory birds, fish, and other living resources 

Actions taken or proposed:

Accomplishments to date include: 

● Developed a program infrastructure and 5-year plan that ensures a common cooperative approach 

between all local, state, and federal agencies with legislative or administrative responsibility for 

any portion of the environmental health of the Gulf. The plan has been signed by the Gulf state 

governors and cooperating agency heads. 

● Funded demonstrations to use wetlands for filtration of domestic, agricultural, and urban 

wastewater to reduce impacts on shellfish-growing waters in several locations. 

● Organized biannual beach cleanups that remove as much as 1 ton of trash per mile. 

● Facilitated restoration of 240 hectares (600 acres) of coastal habitat in cooperation with the 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the State of Florida. 
● Developed technical background information and promoted special area designation under 

MARPOL Annex V for the Gulf of Mexico (Wider Caribbean). 

Within the next 5 years, through an integrated effort that complements existing local, state, and federal 

programs, the program has pledged to: 

● Significantly reduce the rate of loss of coastal wetlands. 

● Achieve an increase in Gulf Coast seagrass beds. 

● Enhance the sustainability of Gulf commercial and recreational fisheries. 

● Protect human health and food supply by reducing input of nutrients, toxic substances, and 

pathogens to the Gulf. 

● Expand public education/outreach tailored for each Gulf Coast county or parish. 

● Ensure that all Gulf beaches are safe for swimming and recreational uses. 

● Reduce by at least 10 percent the amount of trash on beaches. 

● Increase Gulf shellfish beds available for safe harvesting by 10 percent. 

● Reduce critical shoreline erosion 

● Improve and expand coastal habitats that support migratory birds, fish, and other living resources. 

Descriptions of two specific projects that are being carried out by the Gulf of Mexico Program follow. 

Stakeholders:

Agriculture 

Development interests 

Environmental organizations 

Fisheries 

Local and state governments in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas 

Manufacturing and mining 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Other cooperating agencies 

Public deriving food, recreation, and income from the Gulf of Mexico 
Tourism 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

Contact:

Douglas A. Lipka, Ph.D.

EPA/GMP

Building 1103, Room 202

Stennis Space Center, MS 39529

(601) 688-3726

FAX: (601) 688-2709

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Project
Size and location: The Columbia River basin east of the Cascade Crest (includes Idaho, western 

Montana, northern Nevada, and a corner of northwest Wyoming), plus the Upper Klamath basin in 

southeast Oregon and northern California. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Full involvement; EPA staff assigned to the interagency Science 

Integration Team based at Walla Walla, WA. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Forest Service, at the direction of President Clinton. 

Major environmental problems: Much of the federal public land within this region has been severely 

degraded by poor logging and grazing practices. However, the public lands are typically in better shape 

than nonfederal lands and thus contain the last refuges of many of the Pacific Northwest's endangered 

ecosystems. Unfortunately, even these remaining lands are seriously threatened by intense pressure to 

maintain high levels of grazing and timber production. 

Actions taken or proposed: Interagency, inter-disciplinary teams have been established to evaluate the 

current health of eastside ecosystems; to determine what we want these ecosystems to look like in the 
future and how they may be used; to identify alternative ways of achieving those future goals; and, 

finally, to evaluate the scientific, social, and economic effect of actions to achieve those goals. 

Ecosystems on both public and private lands will be evaluated. While the management strategies 

ultimately adopted will apply only to federal lands, the findings and recommendations will hopefully also 

guide the management of adjacent non-federal lands. 

Stakeholders:

Participating federal agencies: 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

U.S. Forest Service 

Bureau of Land Management 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

County and local governments 

Tribal governments 

Contact:

Dan Robison

Walla Walla, WA

(509) 522-4063

Fax: (509) 522-4025

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative
Size and location: The Lower Mississippi Delta Alluvial Plain spans 1100 kilometers (700 miles) from 

southern Illinois to the mouth of the Mississippi River, a 219-county, 7-state area (Arkansas, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Tennessee). It is one of the largest watersheds in the 

world. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Cosponsor of a Delta technical conference on agricultural/ environmental 

issues, opportunities, and technology transfer in 1996 with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

U.S. Department of the Interior - National Biological Survey (USDI-NBS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). State agencies, nonprofit conservation groups, 

and philanthropic organizations will also participate. EPA serves on the Steering Committee - Lower 

Mississippi Valley (LMV) Natural Resource Partnership. EPA Region VI has gained EPA Headquarters 

approval of a sustainable development proposal for the Delta entitled "Sustainable Agriculture and 

Sustainable Environmental Quality in Impoverished Rural Communities," which was selected as one of 

12 projects by the President's Council on Economic Development. Grant projects to address land and 

water resources data management and networking, including a geographic information system (GIS), are 

also in progress. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

National Biological Survey 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Nature Conservancy 

Major environmental problems:

● Historic conversion of bottomland hardwoods to agriculture 

● Loss of habitat and reduction in biodiversity 

● Nonpoint source pollution 

● Toxic contamination 

● Loss of flood control functions 

Actions taken or proposed: A delta-wide conference is being planned through the leadership of the 

National Biological Survey. It will focus on wetland restoration, water quality protection, and 

agricultural management practices. The Lower Mississippi Delta has been named as the Number 1 

priority ecosystem for study and remediation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A delta technical 

forum is planned for January 1996 with many delta participants. 
An EPA Region VI proposal entitled "Sustainable Development Strategy - Lower Mississippi Delta" was 

selected under the President's Council on Sustainable Development. This project will specifically focus 

on empowerment within impoverished minority communities to contribute to environmental remediation 

and planning in the delta. 

For 1995, The Nature Conservancy is developing a large data network plan (geographic information 

system-based) for the delta region through partnerships with existing state systems and the University of 

Arkansas. 

In addition, EPA Region VI is providing financial support for an interagency spatial information 

workshop to be hosted in 1995 by the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Center and the Lower 

Mississippi River Conservation Committee in Memphis, Tennessee. Objectives of the workshop will 

include state-by-state (AR, IL, KY, LA, MO, MS, TN) discussions of ongoing and planned geographic 

information system (GIS) projects, development of an interstate communication network, and planning 

for the integrated collection, transfer, sharing, and analysis of natural resource spatial data needed to 

address environmental issues and to make informed management decisions. 

EPA Region VI has collaborated with Region IV in support of a July 1994 meeting between the Regional 

Administrators of Regions VI and IV to work jointly to fund data collection efforts and encourage the 

development of a centralized GIS in the Lower Mississippi Delta. Development of a GIS-based model is 

vital for targeting bottomland hardwood wetland restoration zones based on pollution prevention and 

habitat restoration. A Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE), "Development of a Geographic 

Information System Data Network for Natural Resources Conservation in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley," will be submitted this year for approval. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural industry 

Agricultural organizations 

Conservation organizations 

County and parish governments 

Cultural heritage organizations 

Environmental organizations 

Federal, state, and local agencies 
Flood control interests 

Forest products industry 

Grassroots groups 

Hunting and fishing interests 

Planning agencies 

Public: farm and nonfarm, nongovernment organizations 

Recreation industry 

Small landowners 

Tourism industry 

Universities 

Urban interests 

Contacts:

Jay Gamble

U.S. EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Ave. (6E-FT)

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-8339

FAX: (214) 665-7446

Jack Hill

USDA/Forest Service

c/o EPA

1445 Ross Ave. (6E-FT)

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-6497

FAX: (214) 665-7446

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Mid-Atlantic Highlands Program (MAHA)
Size and location: The Highlands study area encompasses approximately 168,000 square kilometers 

(65,000 square miles) of oak-hickory forests and upland areas, which include six major watersheds in the 

States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. The MAHA represents many unique 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that extend east to west from the Blue Ridge Mountains to the Ohio 

River and north to south from the Pennsylvania-New York state boundary to the Virginia-North 

Carolina/ Tennessee state boundaries. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA Region II, with EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

and states, has initiated a multiyear program of data collection, analysis, and assessment on ecological 

condition of MAHA air, land, and water resources, as well as identification of sensitive areas and species 

at risk. Through goal setting, the use of environmental indicators, and interpretation and analysis of data, 

Region IV and ORD with state partners will be positioned to determine the relative risk of various threats 

to the ecosystems so that sound environmental management decisions can be made. The program will 

provide the tools to focus on our new imperative: ecosystem management. 

Organization that initiated project:

EPA Region III and Office of Research and Development 

Major environmental problems:

● One of highest rates of acid deposition in United States resulting in acid streams 

● Coal mining impacts such as erosion, silting, and acid damage 

● Nonpoint source runoff from agriculture and logging 

● Landscape patterns of change from construction of new resort communities and increase in 

population in general 

● Habitat loss/change 

Actions taken or proposed: The MAHA products are intended to support: 

● Establishing environmental priorities based on risk. 

● Ranking problems according to severity. 

● Establishing in-stream goals for cleanup activities. 

● Evaluating effectiveness of water quality criteria and best management practices. 

● Establishing optimum environmental conditions (reference conditions) to serve as goals for 

preservation, restoration, and remediation. 

● Mapping areas of special concern. 

● Identifying areas conducive to joint action with states, other federal agencies, and private 

organizations. 

Stakeholders:
MAHA Coordinating Council (EPA Chair)

- consortium of 10 federal agencies to support a collective and more holistic advocacy for the 

management and protection of MAHA's natural resources 

States of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and West Virginia 

The Nature Conservancy 

Contact:

Thomas B. DeMoss

(410) 573-5839

FAX: (410) 573-6888

Power Technology Center

201 Defense Highway, Suite 200

Annapolis, MD 21401

E-mail: demoss.thomas@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment 

(MAIA)
Size and location: The proposed study area is the Mid-Atlantic region of the eastern United States and its 

watersheds, defined by the land and near coastal area that includes all of EPA Region III and parts of 

Regions II and IV. The region extends from southern New York into northeastern North Carolina. The 

region includes EPA Region III (i.e., Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia); 

the Susquehanna and Allegheny River basins, which extend into New York; the Delaware River basin, 

which extends into New Jersey; and the Chowan-Roanoke and Neuse-Pamlico basins, which extend into 

North Carolina. The Mid-Atlantic region encompasses the area from the Mid-Appalachian highlands to 

the estuaries. 

Nature of EPA involvement: MAIA will be conducted as a partnership between EMAP and EPA Region 

III. This partnership will help EMAP focus its research toward developing technology for addressing 

assessment questions of importance to environmental and resource managers. Region III will provide 

EMAP with client-based feedback about the utility of assessment results. Region III's interest in MAIA 

and its continuing efforts in regional assessment will help EMAP access additional data sources in the 

region. 

Organization that initiated project: As a partnership, MAIA has parallel functions of research and 

assessment. EMAP will use MAIA as a forum for research to improve the tools scientists use to monitor 

the environment. Region III will use MAIA's assessment results to guide environmental management. 
MAIA, therefore, will be both a process-driven (research) and product-driven (assessment) activity with 

the following two objectives: 

● (1) Conduct ecological research at different spatial scales in the mid-Atlantic region.

The research conducted for MAIA will be a pilot for investigating scale and integration 

assessment issues of interest to other regions. MAIA's ecological research will address 

fundamental issues pertaining to the sampling design and ecological indicators used to explain the 

condition of an ecosystem and its component resources. This research will produce improved, 

validated methods and more certain descriptions of important ecological processes, exposures, 

effects, and risks. These methods will be refined in the context of MAIA to ensure they provide 

the information necessary for managing ecological risks. Specifically, attempts to assess 

ecological condition at the scale of interest to resource managers (e.g., the watershed or 

ecoregion) will suggest possible enhancements of EMAP. 

● (2) Produce assessments of the mid-Atlantic region across ecological resources and at different 

spatial scales.

MAIA will produce a range of assessments, including those focusing on single resources, single 

resources and ancillary data, and multiple resources. The assessment will address different spatial 

scales ranging from the state of the region to individual watershed assessments (where adequate 

data are available). These assessments will allow scientist and managers to draw conclusions 

about the condition of the ecological resources in the mid-Atlantic region and to relate the 

findings to appropriate management issues. The findings will assist regional and state authorities 

with environmental planning and management, improve our understanding of ecosystem 

condition, and enhance our ability to design protective or remedial strategies at regional and state 

levels. 

Actions taken or proposed: The overall approach to MAIA will be to conduct research in the context of 

design and analysis activities necessary to produce a State of the Region report. Not only will this lead to 

an assessment of great benefit to Region III, but it will also provide a conceptual framework for focusing 

EMAP research to ensure that it is relevant to EPA's needs. This synergistic approach will enable MAIA 

to overcome the gaps in data and methodology that limit integrated ecosystem assessment. 

A five-step process will be used to develop a State of the Region report. The first step will be to identify 

the management questions that must be addressed to ensure that the report is a useful planning tool. 

MAIA can produce useful information only by applying data and methods that address the questions of 

concern to the relevant audience (i.e., environmental and resource managers). Identifying pertinent 

questions will involve convening focus groups of stakeholders and ensuring that they interact with 

EMAP scientists who are experienced in translating generic management questions into scientific 

questions that can be addressed via hypothesis testing. 

Step 1. Identify management questions and translate them into scientific questions. 

Step 2. Identify, collect, and manage data from multiple sources. 
Step 3. Analyze data and develop needed indicators and methods. 

Step 4. Synthesize and interpret results in a risk assessment framework. 

Step 5. Present results and facilitate their incorporation into management decisions. 

Stakeholders: The audience for MAIA includes a diverse group of stakeholders. ORD's Integrated 

Ecosystem Protection Research Program (including EMAP), Region III, and the states (New York, New 

Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and North Carolina) will directly 

utilize the results. Other interested agencies include EPA Regions II and IV; EPA policy and program 

offices (e.g., Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation; Office of Water; Office of Administration and 

Resources Management; Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances); other federal agencies 

(e.g., U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and Agricultural Research Service; U.S. Department 

of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, National Biological Survey, and Fish and Wildlife Service; 

Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); regional and interstate 

programs and authorities (e.g., river basin commissions, regional planning authorities); local agencies; 

and academic and policy research institutions. The remaining stakeholders include Congress, 

nongovernmental environmental organizations, private entities, and the public. 

Contact:

Thomas B. DeMoss

Power Technology Center

201 Defense Highway, Suite 200

Annapolis, MD 21401

(410) 573-5839

FAX: (410) 573-6888

E-mail: demoss.thomas@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

New England Resource Protection 

Project
Size and location: The States of New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. In the future, all of the 

New England states will be included. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA initiated the project and is working with an interstate organization to 

administer its implementation. Resources have been provided in the form of funding and technical and 

programmatic staff support. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA - New England 

Major environmental problems:

● Population growth 

● Habitat loss and alteration 

● Nonpoint sources of contamination 

● Waterborne and airborne discharges and emissions 

● Hazardous waste sites 
Actions taken or proposed: The New England Resource Protection Project is an innovative effort to 

protect New England's most important natural resources, including habitat, water supply, agriculture, 

forestry, and outdoor recreational opportunities. The project began in the State of New Hampshire, where 

priority resource areas have been identified and protection measures developed. Work is starting with 

Connecticut and Rhode Island and eventually will expand to all of New England. 

Specific measurable environmental goals will be developed once the priority resources are selected, but 

examples of goals that might be considered include reopening all of the shellfish beds in Great Bay; 

working with landowners to keep intact large tracts of unfragmented land; ensuring that effective 

programs are in place to protect the most important drinking water supplies; and ensuring that 

withdrawal from these supplies does not threaten wildlife habitat. 

Following selection of priority resource areas, EPA will work with municipal, state, and federal 

governments, regional planning agencies, environmental and business organizations, and others to 

protect the resources. 

Stakeholders:

Appalachian Mountain Club 

Audubon Society of NH 

Business and Industry Association of NH 

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 

NH Department of Environmental Services 

NH Department of Resource and Economic Development 

NH Department of Fish and Game 

NH Department of Transportation 

NH Department of Agriculture 

NH Lakes Association 

NH Office of State Planning 

NH Rivers Council 
NH Timberland Owners Association 

Society for the Protection of NH Forests 

The Nature Conservancy 

UNH Cooperative Extension Program 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Various regional planning agencies and watershed councils 

Local governments 

Contact:

Rosemary Monahan

U.S. EPA - New England

J.F. Kennedy Building

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 565-3518

FAX: (617)565-4940

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Pacific Northwest Ecosystem 

Management Research Initiative
Size and location: Pacific Northwest is defined as Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Project includes 

regional-scale analyses as well as work in two case study watershed/ecoregions: (1) Willamette River 

basin, in Oregon, approximately 29,400 square kilometers, and (2) southern portion of the Washington 

Coastal Ecoregion, which includes the Quinault, Chehalis, and Willapa watersheds and is about 10,500 

square kilometers. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Ecological research program designed to contribute to an "ecosystem 

approach" to environmental management. To complement other federal research programs in the region, 

EPA's research focuses on nonforested lands and watersheds/ecoregions with multiple land uses. 

Organization that initiated project: EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) Environmental 

Research Laboratory-Corvallis. Effort is part of the follow-up to the President's Northwest Forest 

Conference and Forest Ecosystem Management Plan. ORD is also working closely with EPA Region 10. 

Major environmental problems:

● Threatened and endangered species, in particular several salmon stocks 

● Declines in fisheries and forestry yields 

● Declines in biodiversity and water quality 
● Limits on water quantity 

Actions taken or proposed: This is a research program and does not directly involve management actions 

or regulations. EPA does, however, intend to evaluate the potential ecological consequences of 

management alternatives proposed by others. EPA is working closely with other federal agencies to 

coordinate research in the region, through the Interagency Research and Monitoring Committee 

established after the President's Forest Conference. 

Major projects included within the Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Management Research Program are as 

follows: 

● Regional-scale assessment of biodiversity. 

● Watershed-scale ecological assessments dealing with multiple valued endpoints and stressors in 

the two case study watershed/ecoregions. 

● Research on riparian area functions, condition, and restoration. 

● Effects of sedimentation and biological stressors on estuarine ecosystems. 

● Integrated ecological monitoring design 

● Ecological/socioeconomic linkages. 

● Technology information transfer. 

Stakeholders: EPA is working closely with state, tribal, and local governments in the two case study 

watershed/ecoregions, and with state governments for the regional-scale analyses of biodiversity. Much 

of the interaction with stakeholders is coordinated through EPA Region X. 

Contact:

Joan Baker

U.S. EPA

200 SW 35th Street

Corvallis, OR 97333

(503) 754-4517

FAX: (503) 754-4716

E-mail: joan@mail.cor.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Prairie Potholes/Missouri Coteau 

Ecoregion Assessment
Size and location: Missouri Coteau Ecoregion of North Dakota 4,000,000 hectares (9,879,000 acres) (22 

percent of the State of North Dakota). 

Nature of EPA involvement: The Wetland Function Project at ERL-Duluth is coordinating the 

application of two ecological risk assessment strategies to analyze the effects of agricultural stressors and 

best management practices (BMPs) on prairie pothole ecosystems. Research efforts are being supported 

through a combination of in-house staff, contract staff, and interagency agreements with the National 

Biological Survey (NBS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Army Corps of Engineers 

(ACOE). 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA Wetland Research Program 

ERL - Duluth in collaboration with ERL - Corvallis 

Major environmental problems: Major environmental problems in the Prairie Pothole Region include 

wetland habitat loss and degradation, leading to declines in regional waterfowl production. Agricultural 

stressors leading to wetland habitat degradation include wetland drainage, wetland tillage, sedimentation, 
turbidity, and pesticides. 

Actions taken or proposed: A series of ecosystem-level experiments are being conducted to assess the 

effects of agricultural stressors on the ecological health of prairie pothole wetlands, as well as the 

effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) in protecting these ecosystems. Data from the field 

experiments are being used to update, calibrate, and validate ecological response models (vegetation 

succession, wetland bioenergetics (food chain), and habitat-based waterfowl population models). Stressor 

and response models will be applied to a random sample of prairie potholes across the Missouri Coteau 

Ecoregion of North Dakota (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment sites) to predict the effects of 

historical, present, and future management scenarios on regional waterfowl production. In addition, the 

relative risk of pesticides to wetland biota in North Dakota as a whole is being assessed on a county-bycounty basis. Relative risk indices are being calculated based upon pesticide loading rates, acute and 

chronic toxicity, bioaccumulation, and biodegradation potential. 

These two assessment strategies will provide tools not only for analyzing existing problems, but also for 

examining reductions in ecological risk associated with alternative future management scenarios. 

Stakeholders:

The U.S. EPA, ERL-Duluth has been collaborating with NBS, USGS, and U.S. COE during the 

experimental and assessment phases of these projects. Assessment tools and results will be 

communicated to appropriate management agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, and Agricultural Extension Service) to ensure that implications of agricultural and 

wetland management activities are taken into account. 

Contact:

Naomi Detenbeck

(218) 720-5617

FAX: (218)720-5539

E-Mail: detenbeck.naomi@epamail.epa.gov@in

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) Ecosystem 

Assessment
Size and location: Portion of PPR located within State of North Dakota, with lower level of effort in the 

portions of the PPR located in South Dakota and Minnesota. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's Wetlands Research Program (WRP) is conducting several studies 

within the PPR aimed at evaluating ecosystem function, assessing risk, and prioritizing restoration. 

Specific projects include pesticide exposure risk assessment, risk assessment relative to mallard 

production, determining the influence of landscape factors on wetland habitat, evaluating the ability to 

restored farmed pothole wetlands, and mapping priority areas for wetland restoration so as to provide 

maximum habitat benefit. 

Organization that initiated project:

EPA's Wetlands Research Program 

EPA Office of Research and Development -Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

Major environmental problems:
● Drainage 

● Pesticide exposure 

● Sedimentation 

● Habitat loss 

● Waterfowl population decline 

Actions taken or proposed: Studies to support the risk assessments and to determine the influence of 

landscape factors on wetland habitat are underway. Both include development and testing of indicators. 

The work on restoration is being planned; we anticipate being in the field in the summer of 1996. 

Stakeholders:

Conservation groups, such as Ducks Unlimited 

EPA Region VIII 

National Biological Survey 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

State of North Dakota 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Various state agencies 

Contacts:

Mary E. Kentula

U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory

200 SW 35th Street

Corvallis, OR 97333

(503) 754-4478

FAX: (503) 754-4716

E-mail: kentula.mary@heart.cor.epa.gov

Spencer Peterson

U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory

200 SW 35th Street

Corvallis, OR 97333

(503) 754-4457

FAX: (503) 754-4716
E-mail: peterson@heart.cor.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

President's Forest Plan (Pacific 

Northwest)
Size and location: The President's Forest Plan covers western Washington and Oregon and northern 

California. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Advocate for compliance with the Clean Water Act through Watershed 

analysis, restoration project identification, monitoring, ecosystem management research, geographic 

information system development, and coordination with non-federal land managers. Toward these goals, 

EPA has provided approximately $3 million for research and $2 million for restoration activities. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Government (President Clinton) 

Major environmental problems:

● Court-ordered injunctions on federal (U.S. Forest Service/U.S. Bureau of Land Management) 

timber sales/harvest in western Washington, Oregon, northern California 

● Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues - northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet - "old growth" 

forest ecosystem provides critical habitat 

● Pending petitions for ESA listing of other species impacted by forest harvest (e.g., salmon, 
steelhead, bull trout) 

● Regional economic impacts - significant reduction in forest-related jobs, particularly for rural 

communities whose economic base depends on forest industry 

Actions taken or proposed: A Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (FEIS ROD) 

and accompanying standards and guidelines, filed in federal court on April 14, 1994, provides for 

coordinated land management for lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

This region-wide management direction will provide overall coordination across administrative units, 

provinces, and watersheds in Forest Service and BLM lands, for the areas and resources covered by the 

recent final Supplemental Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIS) issued in February 1994. 

This new management direction will apply to projects that will be conducted after site-specific 

environmental analysis. The coordinated management direction established by the ROD will also be 

incorporated into all land and resource plans within the range of the northern spotted owl as they are 

completed or revised. 

For the Forest Service and BLM, this decision amends current land and resource management plans with 

additional land allocations and standards and guidelines. 

The President's Plan is divided into two main sections: aquatic and terrestrial. The aquatic conservation 

strategy is aimed at restoring and maintaining the ecological health of watersheds. The strategy is 

designed to provide a scientific basis for protecting aquatic ecosystems and to enable planning for 

sustainable resource management. The goals of the terrestrial section of the plan are (1) to maintain latesuccessional and old growth species habitat and ecosystems on federal land and (2) to maintain 

biological diversity associated with native species and ecosystems in accordance with laws and 

regulations. 

Stakeholders:

Conservation groups 

Federal, state, and local agencies 

Industrial and nonindustrial landowners 

Interagency Steering Committee (ISC), composed of U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. EPA, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC), composed of Forest Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, U.S. EPA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, the States of Washington, Oregon, and 

California, and three tribal organizations 

The public 

Contact:

Ron Lee

U.S. EPA Region X

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-4013

FAX: (206) 553-1775

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Rio Grande Basin Landscape-Scale 

Assessment
Size and location: Site incorporates the southern New Mexico, Arizona, and west Texas areas and 

includes the Jornada Long-Term Ecological Research Site. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Joint research between Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las 

Vegas (EMSL-LV) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agriculture Research Service (USDA ARS) 

to develop a landscape-scale assessment of vegetation community status and change. EMSL-LV is 

funding this project through an interagency agreement with ARS at New Mexico State University. ARS 

is matching the funding. 

Organization that initiated the project:

U.S. EPA EMAP 

Major environmental problems: Degradation and alteration of critical ecological components and 

processes due to the magnitude and distribution of land uses has occurred over the southwestern United 

States. These alterations have affected several important ecological resources, including streams, 

wetlands, and rangelands. Landscape-scale processes that have been altered include fire, water flow and 

discharge, and extinction/colonization. These alterations have resulted in declines in water quality, 

certain components of biological diversity, and rangeland productivity and have increased the risk of 
catastrophic flooding. Large-scale alterations have impacted the river system. However, the extent and 

distribution of these forms of alterations across the southwestern United States are currently unknown. 

Further, no information is available on the relative degrees of risk and scales of impairment. 

Actions taken or proposed: EMAP-Landscapes has initiated development of large-scale landscape 

indicators. Specifically, EMAP-Landscapes and ARS are developing an AVHRR-based indicator of 

status and changes in vegetation composition, principally through the differential spectral signatures of 

different plants exhibited within and among years. The AVHRR satellite is a relatively inexpensive 

source of data that provides coverages over large areas twice daily. If successful, this approach could be 

used to assess status and changes in the pattern of vegetation communities over large areas and help 

prioritize areas needing improvement. Further, these data could be used to identify areas under greatest 

risk of decline. 

Stakeholders:

U.S. EPA EMAP 

U.S. EPA Region VIII 

U.S. EPA Office of Water 

New Mexico State University 

USDA ARS 

Rio Grande River Consortium 

Desert Research Institute 

Individual states 

The general public 

Other federal agencies, including U.S. Geological Survey, National Biological Survey, and Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 

Contact:

K. Bruce Jones

U.S. EPA/EMSL-LV/MS

P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478

(702) 798-2671

FAX: (702) 798-2208

E-mail: msdkbj@vegas1.las.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Watershed Project
Size and location: The Rio Grande (called the Rio Bravo in Mexico) stretches 2500 kilometers (1551 

miles) that border Texas and Mexico, and its watershed encompasses 366,500 square kilometers 

(141,506 square miles), 66 percent in Mexico and 34 percent in Texas. 

Nature of EPA involvement:

● Development of binational watershed planning framework 

● Support of state, U.S., and Mexican monitoring programs 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. EPA 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

International Boundary and Water Commission 

Major environmental problems:

● High levels of fecal contamination in river downstream of major Texas/Mexican cities 

● Elevated levels of chlorine in the river 

● Limited information on toxic substance impacts on the aquatic environment 

Actions taken or proposed:

● Construction of wastewater treatment plant in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico 

● Binational toxics study completed September 1994 

● Developing "Watershed Alliance" task force to coordinate stakeholder involvement within the Rio 

Grande/Rio Bravo watershed. 

Stakeholders:

National, state, and local agencies responsible for water quality along the Texas/Mexico border 

Residents of the Texas/Mexico border 

Contact:
Carl Young

U.S. EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-6645

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta Estuary
Size and location: The San Francisco Bay/ Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary covers the 4100-

square-kilometer (1600-square-mile) watershed of the Bay and Delta and 107,000 square kilometers 

(41,300 square miles) of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River valleys in the Central Valley. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary has been a priority watershed for 

Region IX for a number of years. Funding has been contributed through sections 319 nonpoint source, 

104(b)(3) wetlands, and 604(b) planning grants, San Francisco Estuary Project (SFEP), Geographic 

Initiative, and other base funding. A large amount of staff and managerial time has been committed to 

projects in this watershed including technical assistance, participation in multiple workgroups, 

management leadership, and facilitation and organizational assistance. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

State of California 

Other federal agencies 
Multiple local agencies 

Major environmental problems:

● Destruction or fragmentation of wetlands and riparian forest resulting from agricultural 

conversion and urban expansion 

● Diversion of fresh water and loss of low-salinity habitat 

● Alteration of aquatic habitats related to water supply systems including dams, reservoirs, pumping 

facilities, and canals 

● Discharge of pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizers, oil and grease, metals, nutrients, and 

sediments from farms, ranches, and cities 

Actions taken or proposed: The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary is the largest 

estuary on the west coast of the Americas and drains over 40 percent of the water in California. The 

estuary supports more than 120 species of fish and is a waterfowl migration and wintering area of 

international importance. As a result of water diversion and other human-induced impacts, the estuary's 

ability to support a diverse ecosystem has declined. While the problems in the estuary are great, they are 

matched by opportunities of equal magnitude. EPA and other state, federal, and local agencies have been 

developing an integrated ecosystem- based approach to restoring the ecological health of the estuary. 

EPA has contributed to these efforts through the National Estuary Program, Water Quality Standards and 

Ecosystem Partnership, a Regional Wetlands and Agricultural Initiative, Nonpoint Source Grants, and 

the Long-Term Management Strategy for Dredged Material Disposal. 

In 1987, Congress established the SFEP under the National Estuary Program. In 1993, SFEP participants 

completed a 5-year planning process with a blueprint for the restoration of the estuary - the 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). Responsibility for implementation of the 

CCMP is being overseen by a broad-based committee, with primary leadership from the state's San 

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

In 1992, the SFEP established a network of demonstration projects for watershed protection designed to 

link environmental protection with economic prosperity. These projects bring together scientists, 

regulators, farmers, and citizen activities to develop strategies for accommodating human activities while 

improving resource protection. Projects include mapping the distribution of native fish and streamside 

forests, innovative livestock management, sustainable agriculture, farmland preservation, wetland 

restoration, and citizen monitoring. Furthermore, the San Francisco Estuarine Institute has been formed 

to implement the Regional Monitoring Strategy to better characterize ecosystem processes and to 

measure the performance of CCMP. As the project moves into its implementation phase, geographic 

subcommittees have been formed to tailor CCMP actions to address priority problems in the North Bay, 

South Bay, and Delta. 

The North Bay includes part of Marin, Solano, Sonoma, and Napa Counties and is known for vast ranch 

lands, rich aquatic habitats, and some of the most productive vineyards in the world. EPA Region IX is 
coordinating the North Bay Initiative, the purpose of which is to develop and implement a resource 

management plan for North Bay watersheds that will improve coordination among various efforts and is 

consistent with the San Francisco Bay/Delta CCMP. Fourteen local, state, and federal agencies have 

signed a Memorandum of Agreement to work cooperatively with landowners and local governments to 

develop the plan, which will address environmental restoration, incentives for continuing agriculture, and 

partnerships for determining sensible land uses. 

On December 15, 1994, four federal agencies (EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) announced a comprehensive package of actions 

under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

to protect the fish and wildlife resources of the Bay/Delta estuary. Previously, the four federal agencies 

and the State of California signed an agreement to establish a comprehensive program for the 

management of the Bay/Delta estuary. Under the agreement, the state and federal agencies will work 

toward adoption of mutually acceptable water quality standards, coordinated implementation of ESA 

requirements and water project operations, and development of a long-term planning process for water 

management in California. The consensus-based effort, now known as the Bay/Delta Ecosystem 

Partnership, will be led by an interagency staff drawn from the participating state and federal agencies 

and an advisory council representing the State's urban, agricultural, and environmental interests. 

The Central Valley Agriculture and Wetlands Initiative is focused on localized outreach and planning to 

address agricultural and wetlands issues in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River Watersheds. Through 

integration with the other Bay/Delta estuary activities, the Region has a significant opportunity to 

promote and expand these initiatives with other state and federal agencies and stakeholders in the Central 

Valley. This approach will help achieve the goal of expanding the focus of the long-term planning 

process beyond the impacts of water development to address pollutants, wetlands preservation, habitat 

loss, and other factors that affect the ecological health of the watershed. Specific projects are focusing on 

pesticides use reduction through whole farming system/integrated pest management demonstration, 

selenium reduction through better irrigation management and total maximum daily load (TMDL) 

implementation, and protection and management of vernal pool resources through local planning and 

outreach. 

The Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) is designed to provide a comprehensive regional plan for 

the placement of dredged material for San Francisco Bay for the next 50 years. Formed in January 1990, 

and led by a four-agency, federal/state partnership, the LTMS involves over 30 participants representing 

government agencies, environmental organizations, ports, and fishermen's groups. The overall goal of 

LTMS is to publish a Management Plan in 1996 that guides the dredging, disposal, and beneficial re-use 

of dredged material in the region. 

Stakeholders:

Bay Conservation and Development Commission 
Business 

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture 

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Delta Protection Commission 

Elected officials 

Environmental groups 

Industry 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Nine counties in the Bay Area and three counties in the Delta 

Resource Conservation Districts 

State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Boards #2 and #5 

The Nature Conservancy 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Yolo County Resource Conservation District 

Contacts:

Patrick Wright, Chief
Bay/Delta Section (W-2-4)

(415) 744-1989

Maria Rea, Chief

Northern California and Hawaii

Watersheds Section (W-3-1)

(415) 744-2005

U.S. EPA Region IX

75 Hawthorne St

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

FAX: (415) 744-1078

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

South Florida Geographic Initiative
Size and location: The South Florida Geographic Initiative encompasses watersheds in the southern 

terminus of the Florida peninsula. This region includes the Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee, the 

Everglades, Big Cypress, Florida Bay, and the Florida Keys; it contains 3 National Parks, one National 

Preserve, 2 National Marine Sanctuaries, and 12 National Wildlife Refuges. The watershed is also home 

to over 6 million people. 

This initiative is linked with a number of smaller place-based projects, including the Florida Keys 

Wetlands Advance Identification Project, the Florida Everglades Mercury Ecological Assessment, and 

the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. All of the related smaller projects are listed in Part Two: 

Regional Summaries, in the Region IV Chapter. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is active in the South Florida Ecosystem in a variety of ways: 

● Conducting an investigation of mercury contamination in the watershed. 

● Developing a Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

(FKNMS). 

● Participating as a member in the Federal Interagency Task Force, which addresses environmental 

problems in South Florida. 

● Providing funding (more than $2 million in FY93-94) to the state and research agencies. 

● Developing a comprehensive South Florida Wetlands Permitting and Mitigation Strategy. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

State of Florida 

Major environmental problems:

● Mercury contamination of Everglades fish and other biota 

● Ecological degradation of Florida Bay and the FKNMS 

● Water supply conflicts among agricultural interests, natural resources, and an expanding urban 
population 

● Nutrient enrichment of the Everglades by agricultural or urban drainage water 

● Loss of historic hydropatterns, water gradients, and discharge 

● Rapid regional population growth 

● Spread of exotic plants and animals 

● Loss of native populations and species of flora and fauna 

● Extensive conversion of remaining wetlands and natural lands to other land uses. 

Actions taken or proposed: In 1993, a 5-year interagency agreement on South Florida Ecosystem 

restoration was signed by six federal departments including EPA, creating a task force to further 

ecosystem restoration, protection, and maintenance. The watershed was chosen as an appropriate unit for 

ecosystem management. Efforts are to be comprehensive in nature, with various agencies taking the lead 

on specific restoration activities. A focus of the interagency effort is the submission of an integrated plan 

for ecosystem restoration, maintenance, and protection that details current achievements, ongoing 

activities, and projected accomplishments. This plan, which is to be updated annually, is to include an 

evaluation of the effectiveness of ongoing efforts. 

A multitude of specific efforts are under way to address environmental problems in the South Florida 

watershed. EPA has designed and begun to carry out a comprehensive interagency multidisciplinary 

study to address the mercury contamination issue and identify sources and solutions. EPA is working 

with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the State of Florida to develop and 

implement a water quality protection program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The 

Army Corps is proceeding with a number of projects that will attempt to provide the hydrologic 

capability to restore the hydrology and ecology of portions of Everglades National Park, the Kissimmee 

River, and the ecosystem as a whole. The State of Florida and the federal government are working with 

private interests to rectify the phosphorus enrichment issue that the Everglades faces. A South Florida 

wetlands conservation plan will be developed through the Wetlands Permitting and Mitigation Strategy 

to address problems associated with historic wetland losses and rapid population growth. 

Stakeholders:

Local governments 

National and local environmental groups 

South Florida agricultural interests 

South Florida urban interests 

State of Florida 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Daniel Scheidt

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3555 ext. 6552

(706) 546-2294

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Southern Appalachians Assessment 

(SAA)
Size and location: Southern Appalachians, which includes parts of Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Alabama, and Virginia. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is co-leading, with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), an ecological 

assessment of the region. 

Other agencies involved include:

National Park Service 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

National Biological Survey 

Army Corps of Engineers 
Oak Ridge National Laboratories (DOE) 

Economic Development Administration 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

The States of Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. EPA 

U.S. Forest Service 

Major environmental problems: The Southern Appalachians are at risk for environmental degradation 

because of their unique setting, including the immense biological wealth, pleasant climate, and unique 

cultural resources. Some of the major environmental stressors or issues identified for the area include: 

● Population growth, urbanization, and second-home recreational developments 

● Acid and air toxic deposition 

● Mine runoff and leaching to surface waters 

● Erosion and siltation from mining, logging and recreational developments 

● Nonpoint source pollution runoff from agriculture and other development activities 

● The introductions of exotics 

Habitat has been diminished, as has the quality of air, water, and land. The consequences of these 

stresses include diminished forest health and a reduction in species diversity and productivity. 

Consequences of special note include the disturbance to high-elevation bogs and the loss of endemic 

species and species of special concern, such as a number of freshwater mussels. The rich Southern 

Appalachian culture and existing socioeconomic structure, which have developed under an economy 

largely dependent on the region's natural resources, is also at risk due to environmental stresses placed on 

the region. 

Actions taken or proposed: EPA and participating agencies are collecting data on the region to 

determine what problems exist and to develop a geographic information system program that is userfriendly for the public. The data will be grouped into five areas: terrestrial, aquatic, air, cultural, and 

landscape. 

To save time and avoid redundancy, the project directors of the Southern Appalachian Assessment and 

the Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale Assessment 
project have agreed to follow EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) 

protocol, which will allow the more in-depth SAMAB Landscape-Scale Assessment project to utilize the 

results of the Southern Appalachian Assessment. The description following on the next page describes in 

detail the landscape assessment portion of the interagency project. 

Contact:

Cory Berish

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3555 ext. 6770

FAX: (404) 347-1043

E-mail: Berish.cory@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Southern Appalachian Man and the 

Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) 

Landscape-Scale Assessment
Size and location: Site incorporates what is know as the SAMAB area, which includes the six-state area 

of Tennessee, southwest Virginia, northern Georgia, northern Alabama, western South Carolina, and 

western North Carolina. The project area is considered regional. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Conduct research on landscape indicators and conduct assessments of 

status and trends of landscapes and medium-sized watersheds and relate findings to conditions in a wide 

number of aquatic and terrestrial resources. The majority of this work will be conducted and cost-shared 

by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Results from the Mid-Atlantic Landscape project will be applied to 

this project. Similar to the Mid-Atlantic project, results generated from assessments will be useful in 

generating alternatives for ecosystem management and in conducting ecological risk assessments. 

Organization that initiated the project:

U.S. EPA EMAP 

Major environmental problems: Degradation and alteration of critical ecological components and 

processes due to the magnitude and distribution of land uses have occurred over the SAMAB Region. 

These alterations have affected several important ecological resources within the SAMAB Region, 

including streams, wetlands, forests, estuaries, and breeding birds and other attributes of biological 
diversity. Landscape-scale processes that have been altered include fire, water flow and discharge, and 

extinction/colonization. These alterations have resulted in declines in water quality and certain 

components of biological diversity and have increased the risk of pest outbreak and catastrophic 

flooding. However, the extent and distribution of these forms of alternations across the SAMAB region 

are currently unknown. Further, no information is available on the relative degrees of risk and scales of 

impairment. 

Actions taken or proposed: EMAP-Landscapes is proposing two primary activities: 

(1) Landscape indicator development that can be applied to multiple-scale ecological assessments

(2) An assessment of status and trends in landscapes as related to: 

● biological diversity and integrity 

● watershed integrity (water quality, quantity, and timing) 

● landscape resilience (the ability of a landscape or watershed to maintain options for ecological 

goods and services in the face of combinations of anthropogenic and natural disturbance). 

EMAP-Landscapes will assess status and trends in landscapes and watersheds over the entire region. 

This activity will be conducted in conjunction with EPA Region IV's regional ecological risk assessment. 

Part of this assessment will include relating individual ecological resources, including forest, streams, 

estuaries, and a variety of wildlife habitats, with landscape pattern at multiple scales. The outcome of this 

assessment should be a fundamental understanding of the scales at which landscape change influence 

different ecological resources. It is EMAP-Landscapes' hypothesis that different resources will have 

different scaling relationships with landscapes. This information will be key in understanding the range 

of risks influencing ecological resources, and in deriving approaches to improve existing conditions. 

Completion of this project depends on availability of land cover data. 

Stakeholders:

General public 

Individual States 

National Biological Survey 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

SAMAB partners 

Tennessee Valley Authority 
U.S. EPA Region IV 

U.S. EPA Office of Water 

U.S. EPA EMAP 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Contact:

K. Bruce Jones

U.S. EPA/EMSL-LV/MS

P.O. Box 93478

Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478

(702)-798-2671

FAX: (702)-798-2208

E-mail: msdkbj@vegas1.las.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Southern Appalachian Mountains 

Initiative (SAMI)
Size and location: The area of concern is the Southern Appalachian Mountains within the boundaries of 

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

Nature of EPA involvement: SAMI is a multi-organizational alliance of state and federal government 

agencies, industries, academia, environmental organizations, and other stakeholders across the region. As 

a member of this partnership, EPA Region IV provides direction and technical assistance to the Initiative 

through its involvement on the SAMI Governing Body, committees, and subcommittees. In addition to inkind services, EPA has also contributed $225,000 annually since FY93 from EPA's 105 Air Grants 

Program. 

Organization that initiated project: The Federal Land Managers for Shenandoah National Park, Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park, and James River Face Wilderness Area made adverse impact 

determinations in reviews of proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air permits for major 

new sources of air pollution. It was these adverse impact findings on PSD permits that spurred the 

voluntary creation of SAMI. 

Major environmental problems:

● Research and monitoring in national parks and wilderness areas of the Southern Appalachian 
Mountains have documented adverse air pollution effects on visibility, streams, soils, and 

vegetation. 

● Air pollutants such as sulfur and nitrogen oxides, ozone, and volatile organic compounds, 

adversely affecting park and wilderness resources, come largely from existing mobile and 

stationary sources both near and distant. 

● The precise amount that each source contributes to the regional air pollution problem is not clear. 

Actions taken or proposed: Through a cooperative effort, SAMI will identify and recommend reasonable 

measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse effects from human-induced air pollution on the 

air-quality-related values of the Southern Appalachians, weighing the environmental and socioeconomic 

implications of any recommendations. This goal will be realized through the development of an integrated 

assessment framework, which will be used to evaluate the impact of the Clean Air Act Amendments as 

well as other emission management options. 

Stakeholders: In addition to Region IV and the states mentioned above, other stakeholders include: 

EPA Region III 

National Park Service 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Forest Service 

Representatives from industry, special interest groups, and academia 

Contact:

Susan Martin

EPA Region IV - APTMD

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3555 ext. 4185

FAX: (404) 347-2130

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency 

Cooperation on Ecosystem Management 

(ICEM)
Size and location: The collection of states differs due to how the participating agencies delineate 

boundaries. Agencies cooperate in a given location when there is a specific problem to be addressed. 

(States generally included are Minnesota, Wyoming, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, and Ohio.) 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provides support staff to coordinate interagency technical workgroups 

formed by 22 participating agencies (research, education, mapping, information systems, landscape 

design, and monitoring and assessment). Region V arranged a listserv function through Research 

Triangle Park to support communications for all workgroups. 

Organization that initiated project: Midwest Federal Environmental Roundtable (an annual meeting of 

regional federal and state agencies) 

Major environmental problems:

● Loss of biodiversity 

● Protection of savanna and grassland ecosystems 

● Classification and mapping systems that identify potential for restoration and protection 

● Coordination on interjurisdictional issues 

● Budgeting for activity in mutual areas of concern 
Actions taken or proposed: Listserv established, attempting to create one for senior managers of 

signatory agencies; beginning to create a process for more senior management involvement; research 

workgroup provided to Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) a ranking of research needs for 

oak savanna recovery; proposed to inventory and create a data base for regional terrestrial ecosystems 

research beginning with savanna types and use the same system that the University of Chicago has for 

aquatic research, allowing the systems to be integrated; initiated two upcoming training sessions, one on 

conflict resolution and the other on biodiversity conservation; provided a preliminary inventory of 

multiownership landscape management projects in the region; facilitated the acceptance and use of the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) National Hierarchy of Ecological Units and related mapping effort (to 

subsection level) for the region. 

Stakeholders:

Formal signatories: 

● Argonne Lab (Department of Energy) 

● Bureau of Land Management (2 parts) 

● Department of the Interior 

● Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

● Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

● Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

● Missouri Department of Conservation 

● National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

● National Park Service 

● Natural Resources Conservation Service 

● U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

● U.S. EPA 

● U.S. Forest Service (3 parts) 

● U.S. Geological Service 

● Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

● Workgroups include members from universities and nongovernmental organizations 

Contact:

Janette Marsh

U.S. EPA Region V

77 West Jackson (ME-19J)

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 886-4856

FAX: (312) 353-5374

E-mail: marsh.janette@epamail.epa.gov
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Part Two: Regional Summaries of LocalScale Ecosystem Protection Efforts

Whereas EPA's large-scale projects are more widely known, its local-scale projects are more abundant 

and considerably more diverse. The places where these projects occur range from a few hectares to 

thousands of square kilometers in area. Many of the projects focus on watersheds of various scales as the 

natural unit of interest. Other projects are based on areas bounded by other types of ecological 

boundaries, and a few are based on jurisdictional boundaries. The activities within these projects might 

include ecological assessment, research, monitoring, economic valuation, planning, or environmental 

management. 

These local-scale projects might or might not have the ecological complexity of the larger regional 

initiatives. There are, however, usually fewer stakeholders concerned with the area. This could indicate 

that it is easier to involve all major interests in the place-based approach on the local scale. 

List of sites

The following 10 chapters include summaries of all 10 Regions' local-scale projects, and a Regional 

projects map accompanies each chapter. Projects that extend across Regional boundaries are repeated 

under each Region in which they occur. 

The local-scale projects in the Inventory at this time, sorted by EPA Region, include: 

● Region I Projects (CT,ME,MA,NH,RI,VT)
● Region II Projects (NJ,NY,PR,VI)

● Region III Projects (DC,DE,MD,PA,VA,WV)

● Region IV Projects (AL,FL,GA,KY,MS,NC,SC,TN)

● Region V Projects (IL,IN,MI,MN,OH,WI)

● Region VI Projects (AR,LA,NM,OK,TX)

● Region VII Projects (IA,KS,MO,NE)

● Region VIII Projects (CO,MT,ND,SD,UT,WY)

● Region IX Projects (AZ,CA,HI,NV)

● Region X Projects (AK,ID,OR,WA)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Region I Projects

Example projects submitted by the Region I include the 14 projects listed below, plus its large-scale 

initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the multisite projects (see Part III). 

The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale and local-scale projects in this 

Region. 

The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of partners 

involved with EPA, and in their goals. Many are based on watersheds, but these range from inland lakes 

and rivers to coastal watersheds, estuaries, and sounds. Nutrient enrichment, habitat degradation, ocean 

pollution, human and environmental health hazards, and chemical and pathogenic contaminants are 

reported among the problems these projects seek to address. Actions taken include developing 

partnerships with a variety of local, state, and federal agencies, industries, private citizens' groups, and 

other organizations. Depending upon the environmental problems present, these multiorganizational 

teams might identify and assess important or degraded habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor and 

analyze loading rates, pollutant sources, and options for pollution prevention; propose development or 

revision of water quality standards; develop outreach and educational programs; or jointly develop 

management plans. Many of the local-scale projects also will enhance as well as benefit from the largescale initiatives in the Region, which include the New England Resource Protection Project, the Gulf of 

Maine Initiative, and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Northeastern 

Lake Assessment. 

List of sites
Region I projects in the Inventory at this time include: 

● Blackstone River, MA

● Buzzards Bay, MA

● Casco Bay Estuary Project, ME

● Green Spaces Healthy Places Project, MA

● Lake Champlain, NY, VT*

● Lake Champlain Advance Planning Area, VT

● Long Island Sound, NY, CT*

● Massachusetts Bays Program, MA, NH

● Massachusetts Bays Program/Mini-Bays Project, MA

● Merrimack River, NH, MA

● Narragansett Bay, MA, RI

● New Bedford Harbor Watershed Assessment Project, MA

● Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Ecological Risk Assessment, NH, ME

● Waquoit Bay, MA

* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional 

boundaries are summarized under each Region in which they occur. 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Blackstone River
Size and location: The Blackstone River is located in south-central Massachusetts and flows from 

Worcester, Massachusetts, to the Seekonk River in Pawtaucket, Rhode Island. The Blackstone has a total 

length of 77 kilometers (48 miles) with a drainage area of 1400 square kilometers (540 square miles). 

The river is the second largest freshwater tributary to the Narragansett Bay. The Blackstone River is an 

important natural, recreational, and cultural resource to both Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In 1986, 

the U.S. Congress established the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor along portions of 

the river in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding and technical assistance to the States of 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island to develop a wet- and dry-weather total maximum daily load (TMDL) 

for toxics consistent throughout the mainstem of the Blackstone River. EPA also has undertaken 

extensive water quality sampling in the watershed with the states. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, based on recommendations from Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island 

Major environmental problems:

● Industrial and municipal discharges 

● Water withdrawal 

● Heavily contaminated sediments 

Actions taken or proposed: Both Massachusetts and Rhode Island have adopted numeric and whole 

effluent water quality criteria and antidegradation provisions in their state water quality standards. Strict 

water-quality-based permits have been issued to major wastewater dischargers and combined sewer 

overflow strategies are being implemented. The following actions have been taken or are currently under 

way: 

● Historic analysis of existing water quality data. 

● Collection of dry-weather data. 

● Calibration of a dissolved oxygen model to include impacts from phosphorus and nitrogen. 

● Calibration of trace metals model for the development of a daily load TMDL and waste load 

allocation (WLA). 

● Collection of wet-weather data to determine annual wet weather loads to Narragansett Bay as well 

as intermediate locations along the river, and the identification of water quality hot spots to target 

best management practices. 

In addition to the above, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs has initiated a 

technical assistance program that is providing pollution prevention assistance to industries to assist them 
in reducing the use of toxic materials. The assistance is provided by a nonregulatory state office and 

consists of various activities including multimedia evaluations, economic evaluations, educational 

materials, seminars and workshops, and identification of alternative chemicals and process technologies. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as part of its Section 22 Planning Assistance to States Program, has 

funded a study to investigate the feasibility of restoring anadromous fish and enhancing waterfowl 

habitat along the Blackstone River. 

The State of Rhode Island has completed a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for 

Narragansett Bay that includes recommendations for the Blackstone. The Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts is including the Blackstone in its Watershed Permitting Plan. 

Stakeholders:

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Environmental, recreation, cultural, and watershed organizations 

Local governments 

Local industries and utilities 

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 

State of Rhode Island 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Geological Survey 

University of Rhode Island 

Contact:

Gerald C. Potamis

U.S. EPA New England Region (WMN)

JFK Federal Building

Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3575

FAX: (617) 565-4940

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Buzzards Bay

Size and location: Buzzards Bay is located in southeastern Massachusetts. It has a surface area of 591 
square kilometers (228 square miles) and a watershed area of 1119 square kilometers (432 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees in the 

Buzzards Bay Program. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

Major environmental problems:

● Nitrogen enrichment 

● Toxic pollutants 

● Pathogenic contamination of shellfish 

Actions taken or proposed: Buzzards Bay was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary Program in 

1987. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan that recommends priority corrective actions 

to restore and maintain the estuarine resources has been developed. Actions accomplished include: 

● Development of nitrogen loading limits for localized embayments. 

● Establishment of a tri-town nitrogen management district. 

● Creation of a toxic use reduction program for the highly industrialized New Bedford area. 

● Establishment of a boat "no discharge area" for the waters in the towns of Wareham and 

Westport. 

● Completion of two storm water remediation projects and partial completion of four others. 

● Establishment of a Mutual Aid Compact for Oil Spill Containment among the 12 municipalities 

surrounding Buzzards Bay. 

● Establishment of a tri-town health district. 

Stakeholders:

Anglers 

Boaters 

Citizens 

Coastal property owners 
Environmental organizations 

Industry 

Local governments 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

Naturalists 

Tourists 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Bruce Rosinoff

U.S. EPA New England Region (WQE)

JFK Federal Bldg

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 565-9448

FAX: (617) 565-3962

State: 

Joseph E. Costa

Buzzards Bay Project

2 Spring Street

Marion, MA 02738

(508) 748-3600

FAX: (508) 748-3962

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Casco Bay Estuary Project

Size and location: Casco Bay covers 593 square kilometers (229 square miles) and its watershed covers 
2251 square kilometers (985 square miles). The bay extends from Cape Elizabeth, Maine, to Phippsburg, 

Maine. Portland, Maine's largest city, borders Casco Bay. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees of the Casco 

Bay Estuary Project. 

Organization that initiated project:

Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Major environmental problems:

● Water quality impacts from storm water and combined sewer overflows 

● Habitat impacts from development 

● Water quality and human health impacts from individual wastewater systems (septic systems) 

● Living resource impacts from existing sediment contamination 

● Lack of public stewardship 

Actions taken or proposed: Casco Bay was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary Program in 

1990. A preliminary management plan for the bay has been developed, and a final Comprehensive 

Conservation and Management Plan with recommendations for priority corrective actions to restore and 

maintain the estuarine resources is due in September 1995. To date, a series of implementation and 

demonstration projects have been undertaken, including: 

● The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service distributed over $200,000 in cost-share 

funds in Casco Bay watershed to address agricultural nonpoint source pollution. 

● A public education campaign provided information on the need to restore eroding stream banks 

along the Pleasant River. Volunteers performed the restoration work. 

● A training program for municipal officials was developed to provide information on nonpoint 

source pollution and best management practices. 

● Administrative structures to ensure the inspection and maintenance of septic systems are being 

evaluated. 

● A storm water management plan for a town center is under development to demonstrate storm 

water control planning in areas designated as growth areas under local zoning ordinances. 

Stakeholders:

Business and industry 

Environmentalists 
Farmers and foresters 

Fishing industry 

Homeowners 

Local, state, and federal officials 

Marina operators 

Realtors and land developers 

Contacts:

EPA:

Diane Gould

Regional Coordinator

EPA Region 1

Suite 1100 (CME)

1 Congress Street

Boston, MA 02114-2023

e-mail: gould.diane@epa.gov

State:

Katherine Groves, Director

Casco Bay Estuary Project

University of Southern Maine

PO Box 9300

49 Exeter St. 

Portland, Maine 04104-9300

e-mail: kgroves@usm.maine.edu

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Green Spaces Healthy Places Project

Size and location: 31-block area within the Roxbury/North Dorchester area of Boston, Massachusetts. 
Nature of EPA involvement: Provide technical assistance to a National Service Corporation team and a 

community development organization for the following: 

● Creation of lead-safe zones. Priority areas are identified with input from the neighborhood 

community organizations. 

● Reduction of indoor environmental health risks to Public Housing Authority residents. 

● Building capacity for environmental accountability at the community level. 

● Demonstration of energy efficiency and water conservation. 

Organizations that initiated project: EPA New England and City Year, a community outreach/service 

organization, entered into a cooperative agreement to secure a grant from Americorps. 

Major environmental problems: Density of listed hazardous waste sites (54 within a 3.9-square 

kilometer/1.5-square mile area); lead and hazardous waste in soil within the 31-block project area; pest 

management; and energy inefficiencies due to infrastructure and lifestyle. 

Actions being taken or proposed:

● The fall component - green spaces development: to clear two vacant lots and transform them into 

a resource for and with the community. One lot will be a community garden, and the other could 

become a community composting center 

● Indoor health hazards, energy conservation - healthy places development: Energy audits in 

targeted buildings. Based on the findings the team will retrofit lights, water, and insulation. 

Conduct indoor health hazards audits and appropriate environmentally sound remediation in a 

public housing development in Roxbury. 

Stakeholders:

Americorps 

City Year 

Community residents 

Corporate partners 

Contact:

Lois K. Adams

Urban Ecosystems Coordinator
EPA New England Region - RRA

JFK Federal Building

Boston, MA 02130

(617) 565-4891

FAX: (617) 565-3335

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake Champlain
Size and location: Lake Champlain is located in the northeastern United States. Its basin includes 

portions of Vermont, northeastern New York, and the Province of Quebec, Canada. The lake is 177 

kilometers (110 miles) long and 19 kilometers (12 miles) wide at its widest. The total area of the basin is 

over 21,000 square kilometers (8200 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding and technical support for the study of Lake 

Champlain. Furthermore, EPA chairs the Lake Champlain Management Conference and participates in a 

number of its committees. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Congress 

Major environmental problems:

● Toxics in lake sediments, with elevated levels in Malletts and Cumberland Bays and Burlington 

Harbor 

● Eutrophication, caused by both point and nonpoint sources, affects water quality and causes 

increased plant growth in the bays 

● Phosphorus, especially from nonpoint sources 

● Consumption advisories due to contaminated fish 

● Non-native nuisance aquatic vegetation and fauna, e.g., zebra mussels 

Actions taken or proposed: Planning actions date to the 1940s. In 1979 the New England River Basin 

Commission performed a Level B Study. 

In 1988, New York, Vermont, and the Province of Quebec signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) on Environmental Cooperation on the Management of Lake Champlain. Important 

accomplishments include the creation of Citizen Advisory Committees to advise agencies on public 

concerns and opinions about lake management and facilitating the adoption of consistent phosphorus 

standards in the lake. The MOU was renewed in 1992. 

In 1989, EPA awarded a Clean Lakes Program grant for a Phase I diagnostic/feasibility study, which is 

nearing completion, under the joint administration of the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. This study will analyze the lake's condition 

and determine the causes of that condition, examine the watershed to determine the sources of pollution, 

and then evaluate solutions and recommendations for the most feasible procedures to restore and protect 

lake water quality. 

The Lake Champlain Management Conference was established under Title 3 of the Great Lakes Critical 

Program Act of 1990, the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990. Comprising 31 
representatives from both sides of the lake, including federal, state, and local governments; local interest 

groups; and citizens, its goal is to develop a Pollution Prevention, Control and Restoration Plan. A 

Program Office funded through the conference has been established in Grand Isle, Vermont, and funding 

provides for education, research, monitoring, planning, and demonstration projects. 

Stakeholders:

Academic Institutions 

Anglers 

Audubon Society 

Businesses 

Environmental groups 

Farmers 

Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce 

Lake Champlain Committee 

Lake Champlain Research Consortium 

Lake George Commission 

Local citizens 

Local watershed groups 

National Park Service 

States of Vermont and New York 

Tourists 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Lee Steppacher

U.S. EPA New England Region

JFK Building

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 565-4874

FAX: (617) 565-4940

Theresa Faber

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278B

(212) 269-8708

FAX: (212) 264-2194

VT: 

Lisa Borre

Lake Champlain Basin Program

54 West Shore Rd.

Grand Isle, VT 05458

(802) 372-3214

FAX: (802) 372-6131

NY: 

Jim Connolly

NYSDEC

Rt. 86

Ray Brook, NY 12977

(508) 897-1211

FAX: (508) 897-1394
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake Champlain Advance Planning Area

Size and location: Northwestern Vermont - Chittenden, Franklin, Grand Isle, and Addison Counties. 
This project covers about 2600 square kilometers (1000 square miles) (260,000 hectares/650,000 acres) 

in northwestern Vermont of the 20,700-square-kilometer (8,000-square-mile) Lake Champlain basin. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Designed and implemented field sampling protocols and accuracy 

assessment of Landsat Thematic Mapper- derived land use/land cover map. EPA is supporting the state 

wetlands program implementation to identify and protect the most valuable and threatened wetlands in 

the study area. 

Organization that initiated project:

Wetland Protection Section, EPA New England Region 

Major environmental problems: The wetlands of the 26 towns composing this area were previously 

identified as under the greatest threat from direct and cumulative development impacts. This project will 

better protect the hydrologic, habitat, and biodiversity functions and values of this region's aquatic 

environment. These wetlands provide the full gamut of hydrological and biological functions and humancentered values. Approximately one-third of endangered and threatened plants and one-half of the 

animals are dependent on Lake Champlain basin wetlands. 

Action taken or proposed: The project has completed an accuracy assessment of land use/cover map for 

study area. Two University of Vermont graduate students have completed theses using this data set. A 

104(b)(3) wetlands grant was given to the state to implement this project beginning in fall 1994. Goals 

include determining and better protecting the most valuable and threatened wetlands of this study area. 

Documentation and technology transfer of the methodology may encourage application throughout the 

entire Lake Champlain basin. Compilation of existing wetland and critical habitat information and 

determining an optional inventory methodology for the entire basin have been identified as the top 

priority for these resources. An extensive public outreach effort will be mounted once study products are 

available to involve people in the planning process. Local, regional, state and federal agencies will be 

encouraged to utilize this information and strengthen protection of valuable and threatened aquatic 

resources. 

Stakeholders:

Citizens 

EPA New England Region 

Lake Champlain Basin Program 

Local municipalities 

Regional Planning Authorities 
State of Vermont Wetlands Program 

USFWS Cooperative Research Unit 

Vermont School of Natural Resources 

Contact:

Greg Hellyer

U.S. EPA New England Region (WWP425)

JFK Federal Building

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 565-4427

FAX: (617) 565-4940

EPA Mail: EPA91161

E-mail: hellyer.greg@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Long Island Sound
Size and location: Long Island Sound is 177 kilometers (110 miles) long and 34 kilometers (21 miles) 

wide. The Sound stretches from the Battery in Manhattan to the Race at the eastern end of Long Island. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Program coordination and oversight; participation in management 

conference committees and technical work groups; and funding assistance. 

Organizations that initiated project:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen) 

● Toxic substance contamination 

● Pathogen contamination 

● Floatable debris 

● Threats to habitat and living resources 

● Land use and development resulting in habitat loss and degraded water quality 

Actions taken or proposed: The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) was selected for inclusion in the 

National Estuary Program in 1987. A Management Conference was convened, and the members of the 

Management Conference developed a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for 

the Sound that recommends priority corrective actions to restore and maintain the resources of the Sound. 

The CCMP was approved by the LISS Policy Committee on March 1, 1994. The governors of New York 

and Connecticut and the Administrator of EPA signed both the CCMP and a special implementation 

agreement on September 26, 1994. 

The Management Conference is implementing a phased agreement to reduce nitrogen loads to Long 

Island Sound. In 1990, to prevent continued declines in dissolved oxygen levels, the LISS Policy 

Committee called for a freeze on point and nonpoint source nitrogen loadings to the Sound in key 

geographic areas at 1990 levels. This "no net increase" policy is being implemented by the States of 

Connecticut and New York through consent orders and permit modifications. Phase II, detailed in the 

CCMP, includes significant, low-cost nitrogen reductions of 18.6 percent to begin the process of 

reducing the severity and extent of hypoxia. Phase III actions will be developed over the next year to 

identify additional nitrogen reductions needed to meet the long-term dissolved oxygen goals. 

Other activities include:
● Reviewing municipal and industrial discharge permits to surface waters to reduce the allowable 

concentrations of toxic pollutants from the previous permitted values. 

● Implementing combined sewer overflow abatement programs in areas affecting Long Island 

Sound to decrease pathogen contamination and floatable debris. 

● Developing enforceable policies to control storm water in areas where it causes closures of 

bathing beaches and shellfish beds. 

● Encouraging public participation in activities related to the cleanup and protection of the Sound 

and providing support for activities including storm drain stenciling, beach grass planting, and 

beach cleanups. 

Stakeholders:

Association of Marine Industries 

Citizen's Campaign for the Environment 

Connecticut Department of Agriculture/Aquaculture Division 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

Connecticut Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program 

Empire State Marine Trade Association 

Interstate Sanitation Commission (NY/NJ/CT) 

Long Island Sound Foundation 

Long Island Sound Keeper 

Long Island Sound Taskforce 

Long Island Sound Watershed Alliance 

National Audubon Society 

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration 

New York City Department of Environmental Protection 
New York Sea Grant Extension Program 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

New York State Department of State 

North Fork Environmental Council 

Northeast Utilities 

Pfizer, Inc. 

Sound Keeper 

Sound Waters 

State University of New York at Stony Brook 

University of Connecticut 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Geological Survey 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities 

Westchester County Department of Planning 

Contact:

Mark Tedesco

Long Island Sound Office

Stamford Government Center

Stamford, CT 06904

(203) 977-1541

FAX: (203) 977-1546
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Massachusetts Bays Program

Size and location: The Massachusetts Bays study area contains both Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts 
Bay, which in turn consist of a myriad of smaller embayments along the entire eastern coast of 

Massachusetts. The bays encompass a surface area of approximately 5200 square kilometers (2000 

square miles), with a contributing watershed area of about 16,000 square kilometers (6300 square miles). 

The watershed consists of significant portions of both Massachusetts and New Hampshire and, in 

particular, includes almost half of Massachusetts' 351 cities and towns. 

Nature of EPA involvement: As part of the National Estuary Program, the Massachusetts Bays Program 

(MBP) receives $5 million over 5 years from EPA. The MBP has received funding from other EPA 

funding sources such as the Action Plan Demonstration Program. EPA also provides full-time technical 

and programmatic assistance to the MBP. 

Organization that initiated project: The Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) is a joint federal/state/local 

partnership initiated in 1988 with an award of $1.6 million in settlement funds from the federal lawsuit 

over the pollution of Boston Harbor. 

Major environmental problems:

● Chemical contamination of water and sediments 

● Bioaccumulation and effects of chemical contamination 

● Pathogen contamination 

● Impaired water quality 

● Habitat loss and modification 

● Sea level rise 

Actions taken or proposed: The MBP was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary Program (NEP) 

in 1990. With NEP designation and accompanying federal funding, the MBP began development of a 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) to achieve the goals of restoration and 

protection of water quality and enhancement of the marine resources of the bays. The CCMP, first 

drafted in 1991, is currently under revision. A final draft CCMP will be released in May 1995 for public 

review. Final publication of the CCMP is scheduled for September 1995. 

The CCMP and accompanying annual work plans serve to direct numerous program activities including: 

● Establishment and staffing of governing committees, such as those for Policy, Management, 

Steering, Technical Advisory, Local Governance, and Public Outreach purposes. 

● Implementation of the CCMP on a regional, geographic basis. 

● MBP-funded research, demonstration, and "Mini-Bays" projects (see next project summary). 

● Protection of living resources from chemical contamination through source reduction. 

● Numerous education and outreach efforts (e.g., teacher training, publication of a coastal access 

guide and watershed map). 

● Protection and restoration of harvestable shellfish resources through storm water remediation and 

septic system upgrades. 
Stakeholders:

Academic community 

Business and industry 

Commercial and recreational users such as anglers, whale watchers, boaters, swimmers 

Environmental groups 

Federal, state, and local government agencies 

Shipping industry 

Tourists 

Waste disposal industry 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Matthew Liebman, Ph.D.

U.S. EPA New England Region (WQE)

JFK Federal Building

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 565-4866

FAX:(617) 565-4940

State: 

Diane Gould, Ph.D.

Massachusetts Bays Program

100 Cambridge Street

20th Floor

Boston, MA 02202

(617) 727-9530, ext. 406

FAX: (617) 727-2754

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Massachusetts Bays Program/Mini-Bays 

Project
Size and location: The Mini-Bays Project includes the following three areas: 

● Wellfleet Harbor on Cape Cod (24.6 square kilometers/9.5 square miles) 

● Fore River Estuary, just south of Boston in Braintree, Quincy, and Weymouth (13 square 

kilometers/5 square miles) 

● Plum Island Sound and Rivers System on the north shore of Boston (18 square kilometers/7 

square miles) 

Nature of EPA involvement: As a subsidiary of the Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP), the Mini-Bays 

Project receives $50,000 per year from EPA and limited staff support. 

Organization that initiated project:

Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) 

Major environmental problems:

● Wellfleet Harbor: pathogens and excessive nutrients, which threaten a nationally known oyster 

population 

● Fore River Estuary: chemical and pathogenic contaminants, the control of which could improve 

shellfish beds in a historically industrialized area 

● Plum Island Sound: pathogen contamination from existing and future development, which 

endangers the nationally famous Ipswich clam 

Actions taken or proposed: With a 5-year funding commitment from the MBP, each Mini-Bays project 

has developed a plan of action, has created management and advisory committees, and has actively 

begun identifying pollution sources. Additional effort has included and will include the development and 

implementation of cost-effective corrective actions, the establishment of monitoring programs (typically 

staffed by volunteers), and the generation of local support. Specific examples of these efforts include 

creation of the Plum Island Sound volunteer monitoring program and reseeding of oyster beds in 

Wellfleet Harbor. 

Stakeholders:

Academic community 

Business and industry 

Commercial and recreational users such as anglers, whale watchers, boaters, swimmers 
Environmental groups 

Federal, state, regional, and local governments 

Shipping industry 

Tourists 

Waste disposal industry 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Matthew Liebman, Ph.D.

U.S. EPA New England Region (WQE)

JFK Federal Building

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 565-4866

FAX: (617) 565-4940

State: 

Diane Gould, Ph.D.

Massachusetts Bays Program

100 Cambridge Street

20th Floor

Boston, MA 02202

(617) 727-9530, ext. 406

FAX: (617) 727-2754

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Merrimack River
Size and location: The Merrimack River has a 13,000-square-kilometer (5,010-square-mile) watershed 

located in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has been an active participant, as well as the primary funding source, 

for the project. The project is an example of "holistic" watershed management and provides an 

opportunity for the Agency to explore how to address environmental problems from that viewpoint. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. EPA 

States of New Hampshire and Massachusetts 

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 

Major environmental problems:

● Combined sewer overflows 

● Nonpoint source pollution 

● Toxics 

● Loss of wetlands and habitats 

● Increasing demand for water 

Actions taken or proposed: In an effort to reach out to stakeholders or user groups in the watershed and 

to better define the issues, the Merrimack River Watershed Consortium was held in February 1992. As a 

result of the Consortium, a Management Committee and four issue-oriented subcommittees were formed. 

The Management Committee and subcommittees include federal, state, regional, and local interest group 

representatives. The subcommittee issues are water quality, instream flow, information 

management/geographic information system (GIS), and resource use and value. 

On June 7-8, 1993, the first annual Merrimack River Watershed Management Conference, "Solutions for 

the Future . . . Actions for the Present," was held. More than 200 people attended the conference and 

contributed to the development of a draft Watershed Management Plan. In fiscal year 1993 the initiative 

had approximately $400,000 in funding. This funding was used for staffing the initiative and pursuing a 

variety of priority projects determined by the subcommittees and Management Committee. These include 

a resource use and value inventory of the watershed, water quality assessment, hydrologic analysis, 

communication strategy, two pilot subwatershed studies, hydrographic coding of the watershed, and the 

development of GIS base maps. 

Projects selected for action in fiscal year 1994 included the formation of a watershed advisory group, the 

development of a citizen environmental monitoring network, resource assessment, information access 
network, business/government forum, and biomonitoring. The second annual Watershed Management 

Conference was held in June of 1994. In addition, internal EPA workgroups are pursuing projects related 

to doing a better job of ecosystem management by integrating internal data bases, targeting compliance 

efforts and inspections based on where critical resources are located, addressing combined sewer 

overflow issues through increased public participation, and locating waste sites as an aid in local 

planning and priority setting. 

The project will receive a final year of funding in 1995. The emphasis will be on implementation projects 

and outreach and education, sharing tools developed and the lessons learned in doing "holistic" 

watershed management. A watershed management plan with recommendations for further work will be 

prepared in 1995 and will assist in guiding the effort in the absence of further EPA funding. 

Stakeholders:

Environmental organizations 

Industry and business 

Local governments 

Massachusetts 

National Park Service 

New Hampshire 

Regional planning agencies 

U.S. EPA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Universities 

Utilities 
Watershed organizations 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Trish Garrigan

U.S. EPA New England Region (WSS)

John F. Kennedy Bldg.

Boston, MA 02203 

(617) 565-2987

FAX: (617) 565-4940

Regional: 

Carolyn Jenkins

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission

255 Ballardvale St.

Wilmington, MA 01887

(508) 658-0500

FAX: (508) 658-5509

State (MA): 

Andrew Gottlieb

Office of Watershed Management

Bureau of Resource Protection

Dept. of Environmental Protection

40 Institute Road

North Grafton, MA 01536

(508) 792-7470

FAX: (508) 839-3469

State (NH): 

Chris Simmers

New Hampshire Dept. of Environmental Services

P.O. Box 95

Concord, NH 03301

(603) 271-2961

FAX: (603) 271-2867
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Narragansett Bay

Size and location: Narragansett Bay is an estuary covering 381 square kilometers (147 square miles) of 
water surface. Its watershed comprises 4292 square kilometers (1657 square miles), 61 percent of which 

is in Massachusetts and 39 percent of which is in Rhode Island. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees in the 

program. 

Person that initiated project:

Governor of Rhode Island 

Major environmental problems:

● Toxic pollutants 

● Nutrients and eutrophication 

● Land-based impacts on water and habitat quality 

● Declining health and abundance of living resources 

● Need for fisheries management 

● Adverse health risk to consumers of seafood 

● Adverse environmental impacts on commercial and recreational uses 

Actions taken or proposed: The Narragansett Bay was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary 

Program in 1987. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) has been developed as 

the blueprint for immediate coordinated action by federal, state, and local implementing authorities. 

Recommended actions to address the problems listed above are prioritized and will be staged over a 

number of years to achieve measurable progress. Since the CCMP received EPA approval in January 

1993, some examples of implementation activities that have been completed include: 

● Development of a Marina Pumpout Siting Plan that will help lead to a request to EPA to designate 

the Bay as a "no discharge area." 

● A Quahog (hard-shell clam) Management Plan for Greenwich Bay. 

● A regulatory review to identify and resolve inconsistencies in state policies regarding water 

quality issues. 

● Revision of the state's individual sewage disposal system regulations and industrial pre-treatment 

regulations. 

Stakeholders:

Environmental advocacy groups 

Federal, state, and local government agencies 
Industry 

Land development interests 

Local citizens 

Marine trade organizations 

Universities 

Contacts:

EPA: 

JoAnne H. Sulak

U.S. EPA New England Region (WQP)

JFK Federal Building

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 565-3523

FAX: (617) 565-4940

State: 

Richard Ribb

Chris Deacutis

Narragansett Bay Project

Rhode Island DEM

291 Promenade Street

Providence, RI 02908

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

New Bedford Harbor Watershed 

Assessment Project
Size and location: The Acushnet (New Bedford Harbor) and Slocums Rivers Basin are sub-basins of the 

Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, watershed. The total study area is about 288 square kilometers. The 

embayment-only (i.e., water surface) areas of the New Bedford and Slocums Rivers are 73.3 square 

kilometers and 5.5 square kilometers, respectively. 

Nature of EPA Involvement: The overall goal of this project is to conduct research that will improve our 

ability to understand, quantify, and predict the cumulative effects of multiple anthropogenic stresses on 

the productivity and sustainability of coastal marine ecosystems. Ultimately, this research will provide a 

generic management tool that can be used to make decisions supporting specific regulatory programs 

(e.g., Superfund) in the context of watershed-level ecological effects. This research will utilize an 

integrated information and data assessment approach geographic information system (GIS) to produce 

quantitative characterizations of waste streams and other anthropogenic activities that act as cumulative 

stressors in the marine environment. Corresponding characterization of ecological responses will provide 

a better understanding of the cause-effect relationships between categories of major stressor and 

ecological effects. The intent of this research is to provide an ability to predict the outcome of regulatory 

management decisions on watershed-level measurable changes in coastal water bodies. 

The initial phase of this work, approximately 2 years in duration, involves a comparative study that 

focuses on an "impacted" watershed (more appropriately termed a sub-basin), New Bedford Harbor 

(New Bedford, MA), and an "unimpacted" watershed, Slocums River (Dartmouth, MA). New Bedford 

Harbor was selected because this system is about to undergo significant stressor and ecological changes 

as a result of Superfund remediation at this site. In addition, an upgrade of the sewage system in the near 

future will alter this waste stream. This will allow a unique opportunity to field-verify laboratory models 

and predictions. The Slocums River estuary was selected as a reference site because it has similar 

physiographic characteristics to NBH, is uncontaminated, and is in close proximity. This will provide a 

point of comparison for assessing the degree of recovery achieved in New Bedford as a result of 

alteration of the various stressor waste streams. 

This research will be accomplished through three tasks. First, the current physical, chemical, and 

biological features of each sub-basin will be characterized. Secondly, the current anthropogenic sources 

and ecological condition of each sub-basin will be characterized. Next, systemlevel stress-response 

relationships will be determined and predictions of environmental alterations (i.e., remediation) on 

ecological changes and recovery will be made. Verification of this process will occur through 

cooperative efforts initiated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division (COENED), and EPA New England Region. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Ecosystem Research Branch, U.S. EPA 

Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett 
Major environmental problems:

● Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

● Metals 

● Wastewater effluent 

Actions taken or proposed: Phased remediation and restoration through dredging and disposal of harbor 

sediments contaminated with PCBs and metals. 

Stakeholders:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. EPA: New England Region and Superfund 

State of Massachusetts 

Cities of New Bedford and Fairhaven, Massachusetts 

Local citizens and environmental groups 

Fishing industry 

Contacts:

Dr. Jonathan H. Garber (401) 782-3154

Dr. William G. Nelson (401) 782-3053

FAX: (401) 782-3030

U.S. EPA

ERL-Narragansett

27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Ecological 

Risk Assessment
Size and location: The ecological risk assessment involves the Portsmouth Harbor/Piscataqua 

River/Great Bay Estuary in the States of New Hampshire and Maine. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The EPA Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL) in Narragansett and 

the Navy Environmental Research Lab (NCCOSC) Navy Interagency Agreement (IAG) jointly conduct 

ecological risk assessment. 

Organization that initiated project:

Navy NCCOSC, San Diego Lab 

Major environmental problems: Ecological risks associated with Naval activities on Seavey Island in 

Portsmouth Harbor. This is a RCRA and CERCLA site. 

Actions taken or proposed: A full-scale ecological risk assessment was designed and conducted jointly 

by ERL-Narragansett and the Navy Environmental Research Lab (NCCOSC) in San Diego, CA. The 

final report of this study is in review. 

Stakeholders:
EPA New England Region 

Northern Division Naval Facilities 

Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, NH 

States of New Hampshire and Maine 

Contact:

Gerald Pesch

U.S. EPA

Environmental Research Laboratory

27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI

(401) 782-3007

FAX: (401) 782-3030

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Waquoit Bay

Size and location: Waquoit Bay is located on the southern shore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The bay 
and its watershed encompass an area of approximately 52 square kilometers (20 square miles); 6.5 square 

kilometers (2.5 square miles) of this area is surface water. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding for the Waquoit Bay project and is assisting in 

conducting an ecological risk assessment on the bay. 

Organizations that initiated project:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Science Foundation 

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems:

● Enrichment of the bay's water with excess amounts of nitrogen 

● Decline in water quality 

● Loss of eelgrass beds 

● Decline of shellfish 

● Increase in fish kills and mats of macroalgae 

Actions taken or proposed: The Land-Margin Ecosystems Research Project was initiated to determine 

the relationship between land use and water quality. Land uses and nutrient loadings were characterized; 

physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring in the bay and surrounding subwatersheds were 

determined; and a geographic information system and a variety of models were developed to understand 

the links between land use and impacts observed in Waquoit Bay. Research results are being fed into an 

easy-to-use "management model" that calculates steady state nitrogen loading rates for various scenarios. 

The model is intended to be specific enough to make predictions about Waquoit Bay and general enough 

to be used in other embayments depending on the parameters selected. It is important that the model be 

more than locally applicable since nitrogen is a pervasive problem along much of the East Coast. 

Stakeholders:

Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod 

Cape Cod Commission 

Citizens for the Protection of Waquoit Bay 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Science Foundation 

Towns of Falmouth and Mashpee 

Universities 

● Boston University 

● Hampshire College 

● Smith College 

● University of Southern California 

U.S. EPA 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute 

Contacts:

EPA: 

JoAnne H. Sulak

U.S. EPA New England Region (WQP)

JFK Federal Building

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 565-3523

FAX: (617) 565-4940

State: 

Christine Gault

Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Reserve

P.O. Box 3092

Waquoit, MA 02536

(508) 457-0495
FAX: (617) 727-5537

Research: 

Dr. Ivan Valiela

Boston University Marine Program

Marine Biological Laboratory

Woods Hole, MA 02543

(508) 548-3705 x515

FAX: (508) 548-7295

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Region II Projects

Example projects submitted by Region II include the 26 projects listed below, plus its large-scale 

initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the multisite projects (see Part III). 

The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale and local-scale projects in this 

Region. 

The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of partners 

involved with EPA, and in their goals. Many are based on watersheds but these vary among lakes, rivers, 

and estuaries/sounds. Several projects are based on "Area of Concern" designation, which involves the 

U.S./Canada boundary's important or sensitive areas. Some others are Clean Lakes Program projects (see 

Part III). Other projects are based on large lakes and their watersheds, tropical lakes (in Puerto Rico), 

waste sites, and wetlands in an urbanizing area. Eutrophication and algae blooms, toxics, heavy metals, 

sediment, storm water/urban runoff, wetlands and habitat loss, urban/suburban nonpoint sources, 

dredging destruction of aquatic/terrestrial habitat, loss of diversity, loss of recreational/water supply uses, 

exotic species, wildlife deformities, pathogens, hypoxia, and loss of shellfish and other harvests are 

reported among the problems this Region's projects seek to address. Actions taken include developing 

partnerships with a variety of local, state and federal agencies, industries, private citizens' groups, and 

other organizations. Depending upon the environmental problems present, these multiorganizational 

teams might develop information systems such as geographic information system (GIS); install erosion 

control; install or improve waste management; identify and assess important or degraded habitats; 

sponsor needed research; monitor and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources, and options for pollution 

prevention; propose development or revision of water quality standards; develop outreach and 

educational programs; or jointly develop local land management plans including sensitive area plans. 
Several large-scale initiatives also partly lie within Region II, including the Chesapeake Bay Program, 

the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment (MAHA), the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA), the 

Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System Project, the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

(EMAP) Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment, the Great Lakes Program, and the Chesapeake 

Bay/MAIA/MAHA Landscape-Scale Assessment. 

List of sites

Region II projects in the Inventory at this time include: 

● Alcyon Lake, NJ

● Barnegat Bay, NJ

● Buffalo River Area of Concern, NY

● Cranberry Lake, NJ

● Deal Lake, NJ

● Delaware Estuary, DE, NJ*

● Eighteenmile Creek Area of Concern, NY

● Greenwood Lake, NJ, NY

● Hackensack Meadowlands District, NJ

● Lake Champlain, NY, VT*

● Lake La Plata, PR

● Lake Loiza, PR

● Lake Musconetcong, NJ

● Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, NY, Ontario

● Long Island Sound, CT, NY*

● New York City Water Supply Watersheds, NY

● New York-New Jersey Harbor, NJ, NY

● Niagara River Area of Concern, NY

● Niagara River Toxics Management Plan, NY

● Onondaga Lake, NY

● Oswego River Harbor Area of Concern, NY

● Peconic Bay, NY

● Rochester Embayment Area of Concern, NY

● St. Lawrence River Area of Concern, NY

● San Juan Bay, PR

● Swartswood Lake, NJ

* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional 

boundaries are summarized under each Region in which they occur. 
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Alcyon Lake

Size and location: Alcyon Lake is located in the Borough of Pitman, Gloucester County, New Jersey. 
The lake is 5.5 hectares (13.5 acres) in size, with a watershed of 10 square kilometers (4 square miles). 

The lake is 244 meters (800 feet) downstream of the LiPari landfill, a Superfund site. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding, grants management, and technical assistance 

for this project. EPA has also coordinated activities on Alcyon Lake with the nearby LiPari Superfund 

site. 

Organization that initiated project:

Gloucester County Planning Department 

Major environmental problems:

● Toxic contamination from the LiPari landfill 

● Silt and organic matter from a sewage treatment plant (closed in 1972) 

● Sediments, organics, and heavy metals from urban storm water runoff 

● Siltation: nutrients and pesticides from agricultural sources 

Actions taken or proposed: New Jersey received a Clean Lakes Program grant in 1991 to conduct a 

Phase I diagnostic/feasibility study for Alcyon Lake and its watershed. This study will analyze the lake's 

condition and determine the causes of that condition, examine the watershed to determine the sources of 

pollution, and then evaluate solutions and recommendations for the most feasible procedures to restore 

and protect the lake's water resources. 

Through the National Demonstration Program for lake water quality established under the Clean Water 

Act and using earmarked and competitive Clean Lakes funding, a watershed master plan will be 

developed and implemented. Actions to be taken might include: 

● Development of a geographic information system (an interactive land management data base that 

uses water quality modeling to determine methods of mitigating sediment loadings). 

● Installation of erosion control devices. 

● Establishment of a Watershed Action Committee to technically review proposed activities. 

● Design of a storm water conveyance system. 

● Development of environmental ordinances and land management guidelines. 

In addition, the LiPari landfill itself has been remediated through the Superfund program. The 

downstream wetlands and the lake itself have been included as part of the offsite remediation, and 

actions will include dredging and restoration of the wetlands and dredging of the lake sediments, which 

will deal with the in situ toxics. 

Stakeholders:
Borough of Pitman 

City of Gloucester 

Gloucester County Planning Department

Local citizens

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contacts:

EPA: 

Theresa Faber

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-8708

FAX: (212) 264-2194

State: 

Bud Cann

Water Monitoring Management

NJ Department of Environmental Protection (CN427)

Trenton, NJ 08625

(609) 292-0427

FAX: (609) 633-1095

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Barnegat Bay
Size and location: Barnegat Bay is a 194-square-kilometer (75-square-mile) estuarine system, with 

Ocean County, New Jersey, as the northern boundary and New Jersey Route 72 as the southern 

boundary. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding and technical assistance. 

Organizations that initiated project:

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 

Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders 

Bay Area Municipalities 

Major environmental problem:

Degraded water quality caused by: 

● Nonpoint source loadings caused by development on land and the activities associated with 

development (e.g., vehicle use, lawn and garden maintenance, septic systems) 

● Boat populations 

● Wildlife populations 

Actions taken or proposed: In 1987 the New Jersey Legislature passed a law requiring the study of the 

nature and extent of development impacts on the bay. As a result of that study, a draft Watershed 

Management Plan for Barnegat Bay was completed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection (NJDEP) in April 1992. The watershed management plan is being reviewed with all of the 

municipalities within the watershed to solicit their support and to make changes in local zoning and 

subdivision regulations, where needed, to effectively implement the management plan watershed-wide. 

In support of this effort, Clean Water Act funds are being used to demonstrate best management practices 

(BMPs), determine the effectiveness of BMPs, and perform intensive monitoring. 

Stakeholders:

Boroughs of Barnegat Light, Bay Head, Beachwood, Harvey Cedars, Island Heights, Lavallette, 

Mantoloking, Ocean Gate, Pine Beach, Point Pleasant, Point Pleasant Beach, Seaside Heights, Seaside 

Park, Ship Bottom, South Toms River, and Surf City 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 
Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders 

Townships of Barnegat, Berkeley, Brick, Dover, Lacey, Long Beach, Ocean, and Strafford 

Contact:

Barbara Spinweber

U.S. EPA Region II

Water Management Division, Room 813

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-8632

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Buffalo River Area of Concern
Size and location: The Buffalo River Area of Concern (AOC) is located in the City of Buffalo in western 

New York State and extends approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) from the mouth of the river to the 

east. The river discharges into Lake Erie near the head of the Niagara River. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's role is to integrate AOC issues into the Lake Ontario Lakewide 

Management Plan (LaMP) and the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (TMP). EPA also provided 

funding to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for actions aimed 

at improving ecosystem health by reducing toxic contamination. 

Organizations that initiated the project:

U.S. EPA 

New York State Department of Environ mental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

Major environmental problems:

● PCBs, chlordane, and PAHs are impairing fishing and aquatic life 

● Navigational dredging of the river and bulkheading and the alterations of the shoreline have 

degraded fish and wildlife habitat 

● Metals and cyanides in the sediment 

Actions taken or proposed: The Buffalo River AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by the 

U.S. and/or Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been 

developed for this AOC to provide a long-term course of action for environmental cleanup. RAP 

development began in 1987. The RAP was completed in 1989 as a working document. A Remedial 

Advisory Committee was formed in 1990 to assist 

NYSDEC in RAP implementation. Actions taken to date include: 

● A flow-activated sampling station was established by NYSDEC to collect samples during highflow events. Measurements were also made at another station at the upper end of the AOC. 

● EPA has developed a sediment dynamics model of the Buffalo River under the Assessment and 

Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program. This model will allow the prediction of 

sediment scour and deposition under a variety of flow conditions in the AOC. 

● A remedial waste removal action is under way at the Bern Metal site, and remedial construction 

action is under way at the Madison Wire site. 

● NYSDEC has developed a plan to assess existing habitat conditions in the Buffalo River and to 

identify potential habitat improvements. Field work has been initiated to compile data on existing 

habitat conditions in the AOC and the immediate upstream watershed. Faculty and students from 

New York State University have conducted physical mapping, siltation rate evaluations, and 
additional biological surveys. 

Stakeholders:

ARO Corporation 

Bern Metal 

Buffalo River Citizens' Committee 

Buffalo River Study Group 

Dresser Industries 

Erie County Department of Environment and Planning 

Friends of the Buffalo River 

Madison Wire 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Other industries 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Ellen Heath

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-5352

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Cranberry Lake
Size and location: Cranberry Lake is located in Byram Township, New Jersey. The lake is 77 hectares 

(190 acres) in size, with a mean depth of 2.1 meters (6.9 feet) and a maximum depth of 4.6 meters (15.1 

feet). The watershed is 733 hectares (1814 acres), including the lake. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding, grants management, and technical assistance. 

Organization that initiated project:

Byram Township, New Jersey 

Major environmental problems:

● Excessive weed growth 

● Reduced dissolved oxygen 

● Sediment loading 

● High in-lake phosphorus concentrations 

● Excessive algal concentrations 

● Reduced fish habitat 

● Septic related and nonpoint source discharges 

● Sediment infilling 

Actions taken or proposed: New Jersey received a Clean Lakes Program Phase II 

Restoration/Implementation grant in 1992 for Cranberry Lake. This project will implement in-lake 

restoration work as well as critical watershed management activities to control nonpoint source pollution 

to the lake. Activities being supported by this funding include: 

● Control of future land development through a sensitive lands management plan. 

● Weed harvesting. 

● Storm sewer management. 

● Correction of existing soil erosion problems. 

Stakeholders:

Byram Township 

Cranberry Lake Community Club 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Sussex County Planning Department 
Tourism 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Theresa Faber

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-8708

FAX: (212) 264-2194

State: 

Budd Cann

Water Monitoring Management

NJ Department of Environmental Protection (CN427)

Trenton, NJ 08625

(609) 292-0427

FAX: (609) 633-1095

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Deal Lake
Size and location: Deal Lake is located in eastern Monmouth County, New Jersey. The lake is 58 

hectares (143 acres) with a watershed of 496 hectares (1,228 acres). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding, grants management, and technical assistance. 

Organization that initiated project: Deal Lake Commission (a substate agency under the Land Use 

Planning Law of New Jersey), in conjunction with the neighboring towns. 

Major environmental problems:

● Upstream and urban development causing increased nutrient and sediment loads 

● Filling in of some shallower areas of the lake 

● Accelerated weed growth 

● Algal blooms, which produce odor problems when rotting 

● Bacteria levels that exceed bathing criteria 

Actions taken or proposed: A state-funded diagnostic/feasibility study was completed in 1983. It 

developed a three-step approach: 

(1) The upgrading or development ordinances and zoning requirements dealing with soil erosion control, 

storm water quality management, and proper watershed/land use management. 

(2) The identification of all existing sources of erosion and implementation of the ordinances or 

avoidance of development. 

(3) The construction of detention basins. 

The Harvey Brook arm of the lake was restored in 1988. The demonstration project included several 

sediment-nutrient control projects, the identification of sensitive environmental areas, and the 

development of environmental ordinances and rezoning. The Deal Lake Commission has developed 

agreements with the five watershed municipalities and meets on a regular basis to discuss watershed 

activities. 

In 1989, New Jersey was awarded a Clean Lakes Program Phase II Restoration/ Implementation grant for 

Deal Lake. This project will implement in-lake restoration work as well as critical watershed 

management activities to control nonpoint source pollution to the lake. 

Permits are being obtained for construction of sedimentation basins funded through the Clean Lakes 

Program, and a preliminary draft of the sensitive land management plan is under review. 
Stakeholders:

Asbury Park 

County Mosquito Commission 

Deal Lake Commission 

Interlaken 

Local citizens 

Neptune Township 

Ocean Township 

Tourists 

Town of Deal 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Theresa Faber

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-8708

FAX: (212) 264-2194

State: 

Budd Cann

Water Monitoring Management

NJ Department of Environmental Protection (CN427)

Trenton, NJ 08625

(609) 292-0427

FAX: (609) 633-1095
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Delaware Estuary
Size and location: This project focuses on the tidal portion of the Delaware River between the falls at 

Trenton, New Jersey, and the mouth of the Delaware Bay (between Cape May, New Jersey, and Cape 

Henlopen, Delaware). The project area, however, encompasses the entire river basin. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding to the Program. EPA (Regions II and III) also provides technical and programmatic support by 

the commitment of four full-time employees. Additional management and staff support is provided on an 

as-need basis. 

Organizations that initiated project: The States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware petitioned 

EPA for inclusion of the Delaware Estuary in the National Estuary Program. 

Major environmental problems:

● Toxics in sediments, fish, and birds 

● Loss of diversity and loss and fragmentation of certain habitat types 

● Nonpoint source pollution 

● Water use: supply, quality, and allocation 

Actions taken or proposed: The Delaware Estuary was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary 

Program in 1988. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan is currently being developed for 

the Delaware Estuary that advocates a watershed protection approach in implementing the action plans. It 

will provide a basinwide perspective in managing land use, toxics, habitat protection, and water use 

issues. 

One project already under way is the mapping of habitat for priority species throughout the estuary. The 

maps will be designed for use by local governments to help them protect habitat through improved 

planning procedures. Land uses and practices appropriate for such areas, coordination of interstate 

management plans, and inclusion of the important species in Environmental Impact Statements will be 

proposed. Interstate fish advisories will be coordinated, and loading limits for selected toxicants (total 

maximum daily loads) will be established. The program will provide technical support for watershedbased land planning for storm water management and nonpoint source control. 

The program is also developing a nonpoint source plan that will assist states in prioritizing watersheds, 

an action plan to address the impacts of toxics on fisheries and raptors, and an action plan for restoration 

of urban stream corridors. The program is proposing development of a long-term environmental policy 

plan that would integrate environmental concerns into decisionmaking by all sectors of society to achieve 

sustainable development. 

Other activities include: 
● Examining potential water supply shortages in certain areas of the Delaware basin (such as the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system and the Triassic lowland bedrock aquifers) and 

encouraging protective action by water and wastewater utilities. 

● Providing tools and technical assistance to local governments in support of improved land use 

planning. 

● Encouraging and providing incentives for increased regional planning. 

● Improving coordination of water supply planning to address water quantity and quality planning. 

● Addressing toxics loadings from ground water and nonpoint sources. 

● Developing a regional information management service that will facilitate sharing of information. 

● Continuing and expanding the ongoing public participation program. 

● Coordinating and expanding the monitoring program of the three states. 

Stakeholders:

Anglers 

Business and industry 

Commercial fishing 

Environmental groups 

Local and regional agencies 

Local citizens 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Private organizations 

The States of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contacts:

Marria O'Malley Walsh/Robert Tudor
U.S. EPA Region III

841 Chestnut Building

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(410) 573-6838 (Marria)

(215) 597-9977 (Robert)

FAX: (215) 597-1850

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Eighteenmile Creek Area of Concern

Size and location: This Area of Concern (AOC) is defined as Eighteenmile Creek and Olcott Harbor, on 
the southwestern shore of Lake Ontario in New York. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's role is to integrate AOC issues into the Lake Ontario Lakewide 

Management Plan (LaMP) and the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (TMP). EPA also provided 

funding to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for actions aimed 

at improving ecosystem health by reducing toxic contamination. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

Major environmental problems:

● Contaminated sediments 

● Contaminated fish 

● Loss of habitat in the lower reach of the Eighteenmile Creek 

Actions taken or proposed: The Eighteenmile Creek AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated 

by the U.S. and/or Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is 

being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term course of action for environmental cleanup. RAP 

development began in March 1994. The Stage I Report on problem definition is in progress and is 

projected to be completed in 1995. A Remedial Action Committee has been formed to assist NYSDEC in 

RAP development. Meanwhile, some projects that had been planned on a Lake Ontario-wide basis are 

resulting in actions that impact the Eighteenmile Creek AOC. For example, NYSDEC is developing 

pollution prevention regulations to require implementation of "Toxic Chemical Reduction Plans" for 

facilities that generate certain amounts/types of hazardous wastes or toxic chemicals. Some industries in 

the Eighteenmile Creek AOC have already taken the initiative to institute pollution prevention practices. 

Stakeholders:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Alice Yeh

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-1865

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Greenwood Lake
Size and location: Greenwood Lake is located in Orange County, New York, and Passaic County, New 

Jersey. The lake is 776 hectares (1,920 acres) in size, 15.5 kilometers (9.6 miles) long, and 1.9 kilometers 

(1.2 miles) wide, with a mean depth of 5 meters (17 feet) and a maximum depth of 17 meters (57 feet). 

The watershed is 96 square kilometers (37 square miles), exclusive of the lake. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding, grants management, and technical assistance. 

Organization that initiated the project:

U.S. Congress 

Major environmental problems:

● Massive weed growth in parts of the lake 

● Floating stumps that form a hazard to navigation 

● Anoxic conditions in the summer months 

● Erosion from development, causing sedimentation at river mouths 

● Taste and odor problems 

● Nonpoint stormwater runoff 

● Septic and point source discharges 

● Internal phosphorus cycling 

Actions taken or proposed: In 1980, New Jersey received a Clean Lakes Program grant to conduct a 

Phase I diagnostic/feasibility study for Greenwood Lake and its watershed. This study analyzed the lake's 

condition and determined the causes of that condition, examined the watershed to determine the sources 

of pollution, and then evaluated solutions and recommendations for the most feasible procedures to 

restore and protect lake water quality. A management plan was developed. This plan recommended: 

● Weed harvesting. 

● Lake drawdown. 

● Construction of storm water quality management structures. 

● Septic management district development. 

● Sensitive lands management plan. 

● Public education. 

In 1989, Phase II Clean Lakes Program grants were awarded to New Jersey and New York for 

Greenwood Lake. Phase II projects implement in-lake restoration work, as well as critical watershed 

management activities to control nonpoint source pollution to the lake. The Phase II projects will 

translate the Phase I recommendations into action. 

Stakeholders:
Greenwood Lake Improvement Committee 

Greenwood Lake Watershed Managementt District, Inc. 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

New York/New Jersey Departments of Transportation 

Orange County Planning Commissioner 

Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District 

Save the Lake Action Committee 

Tourism 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Warwick and Greenwood Lake, NY 

West Milford, NJ 

Contacts:

NJ: 

Bud Cann

Water Monitoring Management

NJDEP (CN-427)

Trenton, NJ 08625-0427

(609) 292-0427

FAX: (609) 633-1095

NY: 

Dr. Jay Bloomfield

Division of Water
NYSDEC

50 Wolf Road

Albany, NY 12233-3502

(518) 457-7470

FAX: (518) 457-1088

EPA: 

Theresa Faber

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-8708

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Hackensack Meadowlands District
Size and Location: The Hackensack Meadowlands District (HMD) is a 83-square-kilometer (32-squaremile) area covering portions of 14 municipalities in northeastern New Jersey. This district comprises 

much of the lower tidal area of the Hackensack River watershed. The undeveloped areas within the HMD 

are primarily wetlands (approximately 3400 hectares/8500 acres) and are under substantial 

developmental pressure. In spite of a long history of pollution and degradation, the Meadowlands support 

significant wildlife populations, particularly migrating and wintering waterfowl. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided some support funding as well as serving as co-lead 

agency for developing an Environmental Impact Statement. 

Organization that initiated project:

Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission 

Major environmental problems:

● Development pressure 

● Significant land, water and air contamination requiring remediation. 

Actions taken or proposed: EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hackensack Meadowlands 

Development Commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection and Energy agreed, by entering into a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) on March 14, 1988, to prepare and implement a Special Area Management Plan 

(SAMP) for the HMD. The MOU requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on the 

SAMP and the development of appropriate regulatory products (e.g., Clean Water Act (CWA) section 

404 wetlands general permits and/or an abbreviated permit process and advance CWA section 404(c) 

actions). The goals of the SAMP, derived from the MOU, are (1) to provide for natural resource 

protection and reasonable economic growth and (2) to provide a program of environmental benefits for 

the district. The completed SAMP will facilitate compliance with all applicable environmental statutes 

and regulations. 

The SAMP is described in detail in the Environmental Impact Statement, which should be available for 

public review in early 1995. The plan contains the following elements: (1) designation of a maximum of 

340 hectares (840 acres) of wetlands for development and transportation improvements (770 

hectares/1900 acres total designated for development) with over (1400 hectares/3400 acres) of wetlands 

designated for enhancement/restoration. (2) Permanent protection of the remaining 3070 hectares (7600 

acres) of wetlands in the district not proposed for development via deed restrictions, transfer of 

development rights, outright purchase, etc. Property owners whose wetland properties are designated for 

preservation could be compensated for any loss of development rights through several financial 

mechanisms outlined in the SAMP. (3) A $1 billion program of environmental cleanup, enhancement, 

and management in one of the most polluted areas of New Jersey. (4) Regulatory products, which include 

a proposed general permit for section 404 activities in certain specified areas, streamlined permit 
processes for all other SAMP-consistent projects, and a mitigation agreement, along with several 

proposed mitigation banks, to increase regulatory certainty and facilitate the implementability of section 

404 requirements under the SAMP. Finally, because the SAMP has been developed for the lower 

watershed, and includes all future development in the Meadowlands, it has been possible to perform a 

comprehensive and cumulative impacts analysis for this highly impacted but still significant ecological 

resource. 

Stakeholders:

Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Mary Anne Thiesing

U.S. EPA Region II

Water Management Division

New York, NY 10278

Phone: (212) 264-8793

Fax: (212) 264-4690

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake Champlain
Size and location: Lake Champlain is located in the northeastern United States. Its basin includes 

portions of Vermont, northeastern New York, and the Province of Quebec, Canada. The lake is 177 

kilometers (110 miles) long and 19 kilometers (12 miles) wide at its widest. The total area of the basin is 

over 21,000 square kilometers (8200 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding and technical support for the study of Lake 

Champlain. Furthermore, EPA chairs the Lake Champlain Management Conference and participates in a 

number of its committees. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Congress 

Major environmental problems:

● Toxics in lake sediments, with elevated levels in Malletts and Cumberland Bays and Burlington 

Harbor 

● Eutrophication, caused by both point and nonpoint sources, affects water quality and causes 

increased plant growth in the bays 

● Phosphorus, especially from nonpoint sources 

● Consumption advisories due to contaminated fish 

● Non-native nuisance aquatic vegetation and fauna, e.g., zebra mussels 

Actions taken or proposed: Planning actions date to the 1940s. In 1979 the New England River Basin 

Commission performed a Level B Study. 

In 1988, New York, Vermont, and the Province of Quebec signed a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) on Environmental Cooperation on the Management of Lake Champlain. Important 

accomplishments include the creation of Citizen Advisory Committees to advise agencies on public 

concerns and opinions about lake management and the facilitating the adoption of consistent phosphorus 

standards in the lake. The MOU was renewed in 1992. 

In 1989, EPA awarded a Clean Lakes Program grant for a Phase I diagnostic/feasibility study, which is 

nearing completion, under the joint administration of the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. This study will analyze the lake's condition 

and determine the causes of that condition, examine the watershed to determine the sources of pollution, 

and then evaluate solutions and recommendations for the most feasible procedures to restore and protect 

lake water quality. 

The Lake Champlain Management Conference was established under Title 3 of the Great Lakes Critical 

Program Act of 1990, the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990. Comprising 31 
representatives from both sides of the lake, including federal, state, and local governments; local interest 

groups; and citizens, its goal is to develop a Pollution Prevention, Control and Restoration Plan. A 

Program Office funded through the conference has been established in Grand Isle, Vermont, and funding 

provides for education, research, monitoring, planning, and demonstration projects. 

Stakeholders:

Academic Institutions 

Anglers 

Audubon Society 

Businesses 

Environmental groups 

Farmers 

Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce 

Lake Champlain Committee 

Lake Champlain Research Consortium 

Lake George Commission 

Local citizens 

Local watershed groups 

National Park Service 

States of Vermont and New York 

Tourists 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Lee Steppacher

New England Region

JFK Building

Boston, MA 02203

(617) 565-4874

FAX: (617) 565-4940

Theresa Faber

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 269-8708

FAX: (212) 264-2194

VT: 

Lisa Borre

Lake Champlain Basin Program

54 West Shore Rd.

Grand Isle, VT 05458

(802) 372-3214

FAX: (802) 372-6131

NY: 

Jim Connolly

NYSDEC

Rt. 86

Ray Brook, NY 12977

(508) 897-1211

FAX: (508) 897-1394
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake La Plata

Size and location: Lake La Plata is a 4.9-square-kilometer (1.9-square-mile) lake located in the 
municipality of Toa Alta, near San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding, grants management, and technical assistance. 

Organization that initiated project:

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board 

Major environmental problems:

● Nonpoint source pollution from agricultural practices and urban development 

● Extreme sedimentation rates reducing storage capacity of the reservoir 

● Increased nutrient rates accelerating eutrophication 

● Oxygen depletion below 4-5 meters (13-16 feet) 

● Water hyacinth infestation 

● Bacterial concentrations exceeding water quality standards 

Actions taken or proposed: Puerto Rico received a Clean Lakes Program grant in 1981 to conduct a 

Phase I diagnostic/feasibility study for Lake LaPlata and its watershed. This study analyzed the lake's 

condition and determined the causes of that condition, examined the watershed to determine the sources 

of pollution, and then evaluated solutions and recommendations for the most feasible procedures to 

restore and protect lake water quality. The overall restoration plan that was developed addressed water 

hyacinth harvesting, sewage improvements, and nonpoint source best management practice 

implementation, including animal waste treatment. The watershed is extensively used for chicken 

production. 

In 1986 and again in 1991, Phase II Clean Water Lakes grants were awarded. The Phase II projects will 

translate the Phase I recommendations into action. Phase II projects implement in-lake restoration work 

as well as critical watershed management activities to control nonpoint source pollution to a lake. The 

Phase II projects include a farmer education and agricultural inspection program and the construction of 

a chicken manure processing plant. The manure processing plant construction is complete. The processed 

manure will be sold to island flower growers as fertilizer. It is a cooperative effort with the 

Commonwealth?s Rural Development Corporation. 

Stakeholders:

Local citizens 

Local government 

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board 
Puerto Rico Department of Health 

Rural Development Corporation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Theresa Faber

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-8708

FAX: (212)264-2194

Puerto Rico: 

Robert Ayala

PR Environmental Quality Board

Santurce, PR 00909

(809) 722-5959

FAX: (809) 767-1962

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake Loiza
Size and location: The Lake Loiza watershed covers 536 square kilometers (207 square miles) (41,000 

hectares/101,380 acres) and is located in the mountains of east-central Puerto Rico. It originates in the 

Espino Ward in the town of San Lorenzo and flows to the Atlantic Ocean at Loiza Aldea. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding and technical assistance. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board 

Soil Conservation Service 

U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 

Cooperative Extension Service 

Major environmental problems:

● High nutrient concentrations 

● Bacteria 

● Pesticides 

● Sedimentation 

● Household garbage 

● Dead animals 

● Polluted runoff from urban areas 

Actions taken or proposed: In 1990, an Agricultural Nonpoint Source Hydrologic Unit Project Plan was 

submitted to and approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of its Water Quality Initiative 

to fund agricultural nonpoint source projects. A 4-year accelerated technical and financial assistance 

program is being carried out on approximately 36,050 acres of agricultural land that will be adequately 

treated or benefitted by the application of agricultural best management practices (BMPs). The Loiza 

Lake project will reduce onsite soil erosion on 4,050 acres of cropland and 26,000 acres of pasture land 

to an acceptable level and reduce offsite agricultural sedimentation by 85 percent or 983,350 tons per 

year and will reduce the amount of chemical and organic matter in the lake. 

Clean Water Act funds are being used to inspect applied BMPs, determine BMP effectiveness, and carry 

out an intensive monitoring program. 

In addition, information and education efforts will include BMP demonstration projects, field tours, 

training meetings, broadcast and print media, and publications and bulletins. 
Stakeholders:

Este Soil Conservation District 

Municipality of Aguas Buenas 

Municipality of Bayamon 

Municipality of Caguas 

Municipality of Carolina 

Municipality of Guaynabo 

Municipality of Loiza 

Municipality of San Lorenzo 

Municipality of Trujillo Alto 

Puerto Rico Association of Conservation Districts 

Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture 

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board 

Turabo Soil Conservation District 

Contact:

Barbara Spinweber

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-8632

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake Musconetcong

Size and location: Lake Musconetcong is located in Sussex County, New Jersey. The lake is 133 
hectares (329 acres) in size, with a mean depth of 1.5 meters (4.8 feet) and a maximum depth of 3 meters 

(10 feet). The watershed covers 5600 hectares (14,000 acres). Lake Musconetcong is upstream of Lake 

Hopatcong, the largest lake in New Jersey at 1085 hectares (2686 acres) and is part of its watershed. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding, grants management, and technical assistance. 

Organization that initiated the project:

Lake Musconetcong Regional Planning Board 

Major environmental problems:

● Extensive weed growth 

● Nonpoint source storm runoff 

● Septic and point source discharges around upstream lakes 

● Internal nutrient recycling 

● Accumulation of organic sediments 

● Algal mat bloom 

Actions taken or proposed: The immediate area around the lake has been sewered. The restoration and 

management plan developed as a result of the Phase I Clean Lakes project recommended the following: 

● Decrease nutrient inputs from watershed sources. 

● Reduce the influx of storm water related sediment loading. 

● Control the growth of aquatic vegetation and mat algae. 

● Deepen the lake. 

Funding was provided for localized dredging, shoreline stabilization, and implementation of a storm 

water management program (detention basins). The lake is also a priority watershed in New Jersey. It has 

received Clean Water Act section 319 funding for best management practices. 

Stakeholders:

Borough of Netcong 

Lake Musconetcong Regional Planning Board 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Tourism 
Town of Stanhope 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Theresa Faber

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-8708

FAX: (212) 264-2194

State: 

Budd Cann

Water Monitoring Management

NJ Department Environmental Protection (CN427)

Trenton, NJ 08625

(609) 292-0427

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan
Size and location: Lake Ontario lies at the downstream end of the chain of Great Lakes. It is the smallest 

of the Great Lakes in terms of surface area (19,000 square kilometers/7340 square miles, 7.8 percent of 

the total Great Lakes surface area). It has a land drainage area of 64,000 square kilometers (24,720 

square miles 12.2 percent of the Great Lakes drainage area). It is the second deepest lake with a 86-meter 

(282-foot) average depth and an 244-meter (800-foot) maximum depth, but its volume (1,651 cubic 

kilometers/393 cubic miles) surpasses only that of Lake Erie. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Active role in expanding focus of actions from toxic chemicals to 

ecosystem impacts (e.g., fish and wildlife population degradation and habitat loss) by incorporating the 

Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan into the Lakewide Management Plan (see below). 

Organizations that initiated the project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

Environment Canada (EC) 

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) 

Major environmental problems:

● Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption due to PCBs, dioxin, DDT, and mirex 

● Degradation of fish and wildlife populations, as well as bird and animal deformities or 

reproductive problems due to PCBs, dioxin, DDT, & dieldrin 

● Drinking water taste and odor problems due to algae or bacteria 

Actions taken or proposed: Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United States 

and Canada, a Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) for Critical Pollutants is being developed for Lake 

Ontario. The primary goal of the LaMP is to reduce both point and nonpoint source loadings that are 

causing or have the potential to cause beneficial use impairments. 

In addition, a Declaration of Intent was signed in 1987 by EPA, EC, NYSDEC, and MOEE, initiating the 

Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP) to reduce toxics loadings to the lake. Actions that have 

been taken to date under the LaMP and LOTMP include: 

● EPA has initiated a pilot Clean Sweep project in Erie County to assist farmers to safely dispose of 

stores of their banned or unregistered pesticides. About 77 farmers and agribusinesses 

participated, resulting in the collection of approximately 3400 kilograms (7500 pounds) of toxic 
contaminants. The Clean Sweep project is being extended to neighboring counties and to the 

Great Lakes basinwide to make the program self-sustaining without additional federal funds. 

● EPA and NYSDEC have begun multimedia (air, water, land) inspections at industrial and 

municipal facilities to evaluate opportunities for implementing pollution prevention techniques. In 

the 1994 fiscal year, of the 223,000 kilograms (491,000 pounds) of pollutants that had been 

emitted by seven facilities (estimated through their permits and waste reports), approximately 

97,000 kilograms (212,800 pounds) (43 percent) were eliminated as a results of the facilities 

implementing the techniques identified in the inspections. 

● EPA has completed Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program 

demonstration projects designed to evaluate and demonstrate numerous remedial treatment 

technologies for the control and removal of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes, with emphasis on 

the removal of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments. A demonstration project was completed in 

the Lake Ontario Basin on the Buffalo River. The remedial treatment technology was successful 

in removing over 80 percent of the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons present in the sediment 

sample. 

Stakeholders:

Environment Canada 

Erie County, NY 

Farmers and agribusinesses 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Alice Yeh

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-1865

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Long Island Sound
Size and location: Long Island Sound is 177 kilometers (110 miles) long and 34 kilometers (21 miles) 

wide. The Sound stretches from the Battery in Manhattan to the Race at the eastern end of Long Island. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Program coordination and oversight; participation in management 

conference committees and technical work groups; and funding assistance. 

Organizations that initiated project:

New York State Department of Environ mental Conservation 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen) 

● Toxic substance contamination 

● Pathogen contamination 

● Floatable debris 

● Threats to habitat and living resources 

● Land use and development resulting in habitat loss and degraded water quality 

Actions taken or proposed: The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) was selected for inclusion in the 

National Estuary Program in 1987. A Management Conference was convened, and the members of the 

Management Conference developed a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for 

the Sound that recommends priority corrective actions to restore and maintain the resources of the Sound. 

The CCMP was approved by the LISS Policy Committee on March 1, 1994. The governors of New York 

and Connecticut and the Administrator of EPA signed both the CCMP and a special implementation 

agreement on September 26, 1994. 

The Management Conference is implementing a phased agreement to reduce nitrogen loads to Long 

Island Sound. In 1990, to prevent continued declines in dissolved oxygen levels, the LISS Policy 

Committee called for a freeze on point and nonpoint source nitrogen loadings to the Sound in key 

geographic areas at 1990 levels. This "no net increase" policy is being implemented by the States of 

Connecticut and New York through consent orders and permit modifications. Phase II, detailed in the 

CCMP, includes significant, low-cost nitrogen reductions of 18.6 percent to begin the process of 

reducing the severity and extent of hypoxia. Phase III actions will be developed over the next year to 

identify additional nitrogen reductions needed to meet the long-term dissolved oxygen goals. 

Other activities include:
● Reviewing municipal and industrial discharge permits to surface waters to reduce the allowable 

concentrations of toxic pollutants from the previous permitted values. 

● Implementing combined sewer overflow abatement programs in areas affecting Long Island 

Sound to decrease pathogen contamination and floatable debris. 

● Developing enforceable policies to control storm water in areas where it causes closures of 

bathing beaches and shellfish beds. 

● Encouraging public participation in activities related to the cleanup and protection of the Sound 

and providing support for activities including storm drain stenciling, beach grass planting, and 

beach cleanups. 

Stakeholders:

Association of Marine Industries 

Citizen's Campaign for the Environment 

Connecticut Department of Agriculture/ Aquaculture Division 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

Connecticut Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program 

Empire State Marine Trade Association 

Interstate Sanitation Commission (NY/NJ/CT) 

Long Island Sound Foundation 

Long Island Sound Keeper 

Long Island Sound Taskforce 

Long Island Sound Watershed Alliance National Audubon Society 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

New York City Department of Environmental Protection 

New York Sea Grant Extension Program 
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

New York State Department of State 

North Fork Environmental Council 

Northeast Utilities 

Pfizer, Inc. 

Sound Keeper 

Sound Waters 

State University of New York at Stony Brook 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Geological Survey 

University of Connecticut 

Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities 

Westchester County Department of Planning 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Contact:

Mark Tedesco

Long Island Sound Office

Stamford Government Center

Stamford, CT 06904

(203) 977-1541

FAX: (203) 977-1546

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

New York City Water Supply Watersheds
Size and location: The water supply for the City of New York is composed of three systems. Together, 

these systems provide water for 8 million residents in New York City, as well as 1 million residents north 

of the city. The Catskill and Delaware systems (Schoharie, Cannonsville, Pepacton, Ashokan, Neversink, 

and Rondout Reservoirs) lie west of the Hudson River, covering an area of approximately 5200 square 

kilometers (2000 square miles). The Kensico and West Branch Reservoirs of the Catskill/Delaware 

systems (plus the independent Croton system) lie east of the Hudson River. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, formalized the New York City 

Department of Environmental Protection's Watershed Protection Program as one of the conditions for 

allowing New York drinking water supply to remain unfiltered. One goal is to reduce microbial 

contamination. EPA has provided oversight of the Watershed Protection Program, technical assistance, 

and grants for rebuilding treatment facilities. 

Organization that initiated project:

New York City 

Major environmental problems:

● Nonpoint source contamination from residential and commercial development 

● Runoff from dairy farming operations 

● Discharges from wastewater treatment plants 

Actions taken or proposed: On December 30, 1993, EPA issued a Determination granting filtration 

avoidance to New York City for the Catskill and Delaware systems. The Determination, which is 

effective until a further Determination is made or until December 15, 1996, requires New York City to 

comply with more than 150 conditions. These conditions mainly consist of steps to further enhance 

watershed protection. Some actions being taken include: 

● Water quality inventory, surveillance, and monitoring. 

● Promulgation of new watershed regulations. 

● Partnership programs with watershed communities and the farm community. 

● Rensico Reservoir coliform remediation. 

● Upgrading of New York City-owned and non-city-owned sewage treatment facilities. 

● Septic tank review, inspection, and remediation. 

● Enhanced enforcement of water quality regulations. 

● Land acquisition. 

● Stream corridor protection. 

The New York City Department of Environmental Protection is undertaking these actions either directly 

or by providing funding to others. 
Stakeholders:

Building Contractor Association of Westchester & the Mid-Hudson River 

Catskill Center 

Catskill Committee of the Sierra Club 

City Club of New York 

City of New York 

Coalition of Watershed Towns (representing all towns in the five west of Hudson counties) 

Congressman Boehlert 

Congressman Fish 

Congresswoman Lowey 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Hudson Riverkeeper 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

New York State Bar Association, Environmental Law Committee 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

New York State Department of Health 

Pure Water Alliance 

Putnam County Legislature 

Sierra Club - New York City Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Westchester County 

Woodstock Times/Huguenot and Highland Herald Publisher New York City Water Supply Watersheds 

Contact:

Robert R. Williams, P.E., Chief

Public Water Supply Section

U.S. EPA Region II

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-1800

FAX: (212) 264-3529

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

New York-New Jersey Harbor
Size and Location: The core area for this project is defined as the New York-New Jersey Harbor from 

the area up to and including the Hudson River near Piermont Marsh to the Sandy HookRockaway Point 

Transect, the Harlem and East Rivers to Hellgate, and all other tributaries to the head of tide. The core 

area is encompassed within an approximately 80-kilometer (50-mile) diameter circle centered on the 

Upper Bay of New York-New Jersey Harbor. For planning purposes, the New York Bight Apex along 

with the New Jersey and Long Island coasts to 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) offshore and the Hudson River to 

the limit of anadromous fish spawning are considered within the study area. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees in the 

program. 

Organizations that initiated project:

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Major environmental problems:

● Floatable debris 

● Pathogenic contamination 

● Toxic contamination 

● Nutrient and organic enrichment 

● Habitat loss and degradation 

Actions taken or proposed: The New York-New Jersey Harbor was selected for inclusion in the National 

Estuary Program in 1988. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that 

recommends priority corrective actions to restore and maintain the resources of the Harbor is being 

developed. The draft CCMP is expected to be released to the public in 1994. The final CCMP is due to 

EPA and the governors of New York and New Jersey by June 1, 1995, and EPA's Administrator is 

expected to approve the CCMP in September 1995. Actions identified to date include: 

● Floatables Action Plan. 

● Beach/Shellfish Bed Closure Action Plan. 

● Site-Specific Water Quality Standard for copper. 

● Wasteload allocations for toxic metals. 

Stakeholders:

Citizens' groups 
Interstate Sanitation Commission 

Local governments, including New York City 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

Scientific and technical community 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Seth Ausubel

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-6779

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Niagara River Area of Concern
Size and location: The Niagara River Area of Concern (AOC) is located in Erie and Niagara Counties in 

western New York. The AOC extends from Smokes Creek near the southern end of the Buffalo Harbor 

north to the mouth of the Niagara River at Lake Ontario. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's role is to integrate AOC issues into the Lake Ontario Lakewide 

Management Plan (LaMP) and the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (TMP). EPA also provided 

funding to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for actions aimed 

at improving ecosystem health by reducing toxic contamination. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

New York State Department of Environ mental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

Major environmental problems:

● Impairment of habitat and survival of aquatic life by PCBs, mirex, chlordane, dioxin, 

hexachlorobenzene, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, lead, mercury, tetrachloroethylene, and 

pesticides 

● Fish tumors and other deformities 

● Metals and cyanides in the sediment prevent open lake disposal of bottom sediments dredged 

from the river 

Actions taken or proposed: The Niagara River AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by the 

U.S. and/or Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is being 

developed for this AOC to provide a long-term course of action for environmental cleanup. RAP 

development began in 1989, and the final draft was completed in March 1993. A Remedial Advisory 

Committee will be formed to assist NYSDEC in RAP implementation. Actions that have been taken to 

date include: 

● Upstream (Fort Erie) and downstream (Niagara-on-the-Lake) water quality monitoring to estimate 

pollutant loadings is ongoing. 

● Scheduled remedial actions at Occidental Chemical's Buffalo Avenue and Durez sites, DuPont's 

Necco Park and Buffalo Avenue sites, Bell Aerospace, and CECOS International have resulted in 

an estimated 25 percent reduction in loadings from waste sites in the Niagara River basin. 

● Remedial actions on Gill Creek were completed in 1992. 

● NYSDEC is developing pollution prevention regulations to require implementation of Toxic 

Chemical Reduction Plans for facilities that generate certain amounts/types of hazardous wastes 

or toxic chemicals. Many industries have already taken the initiative to institute pollution 

prevention practices. 
Additional actions taken in this AOC are included in the summary of projects undertaken for the Niagara 

River Toxics Management Plan, which covers a larger, but similar area. 

Stakeholders:

Bethlehem Steel 

Buffalo Sewer Authority 

Columbus-McKinnon 

DuPont-Necco Park 

Environment Canada 

INS Equipment 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Niagara River Action Committee 

Occidental Chemical 

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy 

Other industries 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Ellen Heath

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-5352

FAX: (212) 264-2914

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
Size and location: The Niagara River is a 60-kilometer (37-mile) channel that connects Lake Erie to 

Lake Ontario. Divided into upper and lower reaches by Niagara Falls, it provides 83 percent of the total 

tributary flow to Lake Ontario. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has had an active role in tracking implementation of Niagara River 

Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP) and reporting progress to the public. EPA also has provided funding 

to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for NRTMP actions 

aimed at improving ecosystem health by reducing toxic contamination. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. EPA 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

Environment Canada (EC) 

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) 

Major environmental problems:

● Impairment of habitat and survival of aquatic life by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mirex, 

chlordane, dioxin, hexachlorobenzene, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, lead, mercury, 

tetrachloroethylene, and pesticides 

● Fish tumors and other deformities 

● Metals/cyanides in sediments prevent open lake disposal of bottom sediments dredged from river 

Actions taken or proposed: A Declaration of Intent was signed in 1987 by EPA, EC, NYSDEC, and 

MOEE initiating the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP) to reduce toxics loadings to the 

Niagara River. Actions that have been taken to date include: 

● In 1989, EPA and NYSDEC identified the Falls Street Tunnel as responsible for over 50 percent 

of the aggregate point source loadings (from the United States to the Niagara River) of the 10 

persistent toxic chemicals targeted for significant reductions by the NRTMP. In 1993, the U.S. 

Department of Justice lodged a settlement in Federal Court that commits the City of Niagara Falls 

to treat all the dry-weather flow. Construction to divert the entire dryweather flow to the Niagara 

Falls wastewater treatment plant was completed on schedule, and treatment of the toxic chemicals 

has been confirmed. 

● Over 5800 cubic meters (7600 cubic yards) of highly contaminated sediment was removed from 

Gill Creek, eliminating, among other pollutants, an estimated 0.2-kg-per-day (0.4-pound-per-day) 

load of PCBs to the Niagara River. This magnitude of loading is approximately 20 percent of the 
loading measured from the Niagara River to Lake Ontario. 

● EPA and NYSDEC identified 24 waste sites responsible for 99.9 percent of the estimated toxic 

loads from all sites and developed ambitious clean-up schedules for them. In June 1994, the 

agencies reported that remediations at eight sites have resulted in an estimated 25 percent 

reduction in these loads. By 1996, scheduled remedial actions will reduce the estimated toxic 

loads by 89 percent. 

● Approximately 22,000 cubic meters (29,000 cubic yards) of contaminated sediments were 

removed from Bloody Run Creek, also associated with leachate from the Hyde Park landfill. 

Substances removed included chlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, and low levels of dioxin. The 

creek was relined with clean gravel. 

● EPA has carried out inspections at Niagara River basin facilities for waste minimization activities 

on behalf of the Niagara Frontier Program. EPA targeted facilities that discharge either NRTMP 

priority toxics or toxics that are highly bioaccumulative. EPA's reports include descriptions of 

facility manufacturing processes, waste generation and environmental releases, waste 

minimization achievements to date, potential waste minimization opportunities, and facility 

response to the evaluation. 

Stakeholders:

Bell Aerospace 

City of Niagara Falls 

DuPont 

Environment Canada 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Occidental Chemical 

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy 

Other industries 

U.S. EPA 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Contact:
Ellen Heath

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-5352

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Onondaga Lake
Size and location: Onondaga Lake is located along the northern end of the City of Syracuse in Onondaga 

County, New York. The lake covers an area of 11.9 square kilometers (4.6 square miles). The lake 

receives water from a drainage basin of 648 square kilometers (248 square miles), located almost entirely 

within Onondaga County. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding and technical assistance and has participated in 

the Onondaga Lake Management Conference. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Congress 

Major environmental problems:

● Excessive nutrient loading from a large municipal discharge causing eutrophic and low-oxygen 

conditions 

● Combined sewer overflows of untreated sewage and debris, generating bacteria concerns 

● Mercury and other hazardous materials in the sediment, water, and biota from past manufacturing 

operations 

● Low dissolved oxygen levels, high turbidity levels, elevated levels of ammonia and salinity, 

reduced plant life, unsuitable substrate, and the presence of mercury, which have adversely 

affected aquatic organisms. 

● Sediment loading from the Tully Valley Mudboils 

Actions taken or proposed: In 1989 Congress appropriated funds for EPA to convene a management 

conference for Onondaga Lake. Subsequently, the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990 called for 

the establishment of a management conference for the restoration, conservation, and management of 

Onondaga Lake and called for the development of a comprehensive restoration, conservation, and 

management plan for Onondaga Lake that recommends priority corrective action and compliance 

schedules for the cleanup of the lake. The Management Conference consists of all federal, state, local, 

public, and private interests. Management Conference projects include: 

● Developing a eutrophication model for the Seneca River. 

● Developing a lake productivity model. 

● Developing a hydrodynamic model for the lake outlet. 

● Funding studies on the release of nutrients and toxic substances from lake sediments under 

changing dissolved oxygen levels. 

● Establishing a long-term baseline water quality program. 

● Drafting an urban/suburban nonpoint source pollution plan. 

● Drafting a fish and wildlife management plan. 

● Developing a demonstration project of manipulated littoral zone habitat structures that indicated 

that fencing and wave breaks could significantly increase plant survival, growth, and diversity and 
that these habitats also increase survival of young-of-the-year fish. 

Future projects proposed for Onondaga Lake include: 

● Evaluate, and update on a regular basis, the contamination status of lake organisms. 

● Develop and implement a biological monitoring program. 

● Implement the rural nonpoint source pollution plan. 

● Develop a public education plan. 

● Conduct pilot projects to implement flow modification and sediment load reduction in the Tully 

Valley Mudboil area. 

● Implement a large-scale macrophyte planting project. 

● Reconnect fragmented wetlands area to Onondaga Lake to provide vital fish spawning and youngof-the-year fish nursery areas. 

● Study the role of vegetation in mercury cycling. 

● Expand the hydrodynamic model for the lake outlet to include the lake and Seneca River. 

Implementation of the plan will involve the targeted use of existing regulatory programs within the 

geographic confines of Onondaga Lake. As a result of regulatory programs, a number of administrative 

orders, court orders, and pending lawsuits are directed at the many sources of pollution in the lake. Very 

important among these actions is the court order addressing the Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater 

Treatment Plant (METRO) and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) on the lake. 

Stakeholders:

City of Syracuse 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

New York State Department of Law 

Onondaga County 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Christopher E. Dere

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-5353

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Oswego River Harbor Area of Concern
Size and location: The Oswego River Harbor Area of Concern (AOC) is located on the southeastern 

shore of Lake Ontario and is centered in the City of Oswego, New York. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's role is to integrate AOC issues into the Lake Ontario Lakewide 

Management Plan (LaMP) and the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (TMP). EPA also provided 

funding to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for actions aimed 

at improving ecosystem health by reducing toxic contamination. 

Organizations that initiated the project:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption primarily due to PCBs and dioxin 

● Loss of fish and wildlife habitats caused by periodic extreme low-flow conditions below the 

Varick Dam, contributing to the degradation of fish populations 

● Eutrophication and reported algal blooms, which have been attributed to excess phosphorus from 

municipal discharges, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and agricultural runoff 

● Pollutants of concern from identified sources in the basin are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

dioxin, phosphorus, mercury, mirex/photo-mirex, and octachlorostyrene 

Actions taken or proposed: The Oswego River Harbor AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been 

designated by the U.S. and/or Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan 

(RAP) is being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term course of action for environmental 

cleanup. RAP development began in 1987. The Stage I Report, which describes the nature and extent of 

problems, was completed in 1990. The Stage II Report was completed in 1991 and includes a remedial 

strategy to restore water quality in the lower river and harbor and to eliminate adverse impacts to Lake 

Ontario from pollutants carried by the Oswego River. A Remedial Advisory Committee (RAC) was then 

formed to represent all stakeholders and assist NYSDEC in RAP implementation. Actions that have been 

taken to implement the recommendations of the Stage II Report include: 

● Under a recent settlement and enforcement action, Bristol Myers Squib in East Syracuse agreed to 

implement a $30 million upgrade of its pretreatment facilities and to conduct site investigations 

and pollution prevention activities. 

● EPA and NYSDEC are jointly overseeing the implementation of eight Approved Pretreatment 

Programs in the Oswego Basin. 

● Modeling of Onondaga Lake and Three Rivers (Oswego, Seneca, and Oneida) is well under way 

and is to be used to determine loadings, additional upgrade needs, and CSO needs. 
● Implementation of remedial actions is under way at the Clothier and Quanta Resources hazardous 

waste sites. Clothier involves drum and soil contamination removal. Quanta involves additional 

monitoring to determine whether interim remedial measures are effective and sufficient. Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Studies are in progress at seven other sites, including Onondaga Lake 

and Ley Creek PCB sites, as prerequisites to remedial action. 

● NYSDEC is working with Niagara Mohawk and other hydroelectric utilities to allow restricted 

fish passage at Oswego River facilities and to resolve minimum flow problems at Varick Bypass. 

Estimated completion is 1995.Oswego River Harbor Area of Concern 

Stakeholders:

Auburn, Canadaigua, Fulton, Geneva, Ithaca, Newark, Oswego, and Onondaga Counties 

Bristol Myers Squib 

Citizens' Advisory Committee 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Niagara Mohawk and other hydroelectric utilities 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Alice Yeh

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-1865

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Peconic Bay
Size and location: The surface area of Peconic Bay is about 520 square kilometers (200 square miles). 

The estuary lies between the twin forks of eastern Long Island, New York. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA representatives serve as chairs of the Policy and Management 

Committees and provide technical and administrative support to the Technical Advisory Committee, 

Citizens Advisory Committee, and Local Government Committee. EPA also provides financial support, 

including grants under the National Estuary Program, and the Near Coastal Water and Wetlands 

Programs. 

Organization that initiated project:

Suffolk County Department of Health Services 

Major environmental problems:

● Nuisance algal bloom that destroyed the once-important scallop fishery and has impacted other 

shellfish, finfish, and their nursery areas 

● Nutrients in the western areas of the bay 

● Pathogens from point and nonpoint sources 

Actions taken or proposed: Peconic Bay was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary Program in 

1992. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that will recommend priority 

corrective actions to restore and maintain the estuarine resources is being developed for the bay. Actions 

that have been taken in the bay include: 

● Freezing the nitrogen load from sewage treatment plants at current levels. 

● Remediating nonpoint source nutrient pollution from a local duck farm. 

● Replanting scallops to recovering areas. 

● Planting grass buffer strips to control pathogen contamination due to road runoff. 

● Remediating wetland habitats. 

● Constructing boat pump-out facilities. 

● Adopting a total nitrogen surface water quality guideline for the western area of the Bay. 

Stakeholders:

Accabonic Protection Committee 

ACT NOW!/Promoting Community Awareness 

Association of Marine Industries 
Brookhaven National Labs 

Concerned Citizens of Montauk 

Cornell Cooperative Extension Association of Suffolk County 

East Hampton Historical Society 

East Hampton Town Baymen's Association 

Group for the South Fork 

Harbor Marina 

Larry's Lighthouse Marine 

League of Women Voters 

Long Island Farm Bureau, Inc. 

Long Island Pine Barrens Association 

Long Island Regional Planning Board 

Long Island University 

Long Island Water Commission 

Modern Yachts 

Montauk Boatman and Captain's Association 

Montauk Chamber of Commerce 

Montauk Harbor Association 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

New Suffolk Civic Association 
New York Sea Grant 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

New York State Department of State 

New York State Department of Transportation 

North Fork Bank 

North Fork Environmental Council 

Office of the Suffolk County Executive 

Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation 

Peconic Land Trust 

Red Cedar Point Association 

Riverhead Conservation Advisory Council 

Seafood Harvesters Association of New York 

Shelter Island Baymen's Association 

Shinnecock Marlin & Tuna Club 

South Town Baymen's Association 

Southampton Town Baymen's Association 

State University of New York - Stony Brook 

Suffolk Community College 

Suffolk County Department of Health Services 

Suffolk County Planning Department 

Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District 
Soil Conservation Service 

The Nature Conservancy 

Town of Brookhaven Division of Environmental Protection 

Towns of East Hampton, Southampton, Shelter Island, Riverhead, and Southold 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Rick Balla

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-567

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Local: 

Vito Minei, P.E.

Office of Ecology

Suffolk County

Department of County Center

Riverhead, NY 11401-3397

(516) 852-2077

FAX: (516) 852-2092

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Rochester Embayment Area of Concern
Size and location: The Rochester Embayment Area of Concern (AOC) is an area of Lake Ontario formed 

by the indentation of the Monroe County shoreline between Bogus Point (Town of Greece) and Nine 

Mile Point (Town of Webster). The southern boundary includes approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) of 

the Genesee River that is influenced by lake levels, from the river?s mouth to the Lower Falls. The 

drainage area of the embayment is over 12,500 square kilometers (4828 square miles) in area. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's role is to integrate AOC issues into the Lake Ontario Lakewide 

Management Plan (LaMP) and the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (TMP). EPA also provided 

funding to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for actions aimed 

at improving ecosystem health by reducing toxic contamination. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Monroe County Department of Planning and Development (MCDPD) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

Major environmental problems:

● Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption 

● Degradation of fish and wildlife populations and loss of habitat 

● Bird and animal deformities or reproduction problems 

● Eutrophication or undesirable algae and beach closings 

● Restrictions on drinking water or taste and odor problems 

(The above impairments are caused by mirex and dioxin; polychlorinated biphenyls and chlordane from 

past use; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from coal gas production; heavy metals and cyanide from 

industrial dischargers; coliform, ammonia, phosphorus, and sediment from the watershed; and phenols.) 

Actions taken or proposed: The Rochester Embayment AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been 

designated by the U.S. and/or Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan 

(RAP) is being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term course of action for environmental 

cleanup. RAP development began in 1988. The Stage I Report, which describes the nature and extent of 

the problems, has been completed, and the Stage II Report, which identifies remedial actions and 

implementation methods, is under way. Actions that have been taken to implement the recommendations 

of the Stage II Report include: 

● A Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Abatement Program has been implemented to construct 

underground storage tunnels to intercept CSOs before they enter the Embayment and the Genesee 
River. The tunnel system conveys the wastewater in the combined sewers to the Van Lare 

Wastewater Treatment Facility before it enters the lake. The number of annual overflows at 30 

previous overflow locations has been dramatically decreased from 60 to 2 or less. 

● The Irondequoit Bay Oxygen Supplementation Project is a water quality/habitat enhancement 

project whose goal is to improve the control of phosphorus by both chemical processes (increased 

oxygen, which enhances the natural system of adsorption/precipitation with iron oxides) and 

biological means (reduced phosphorus deposition through algal harvesting by fish). To revitalize 

the cold-water fishery in the bay, introduction of oxygen into the deep waters will both accelerate 

natural ecosystem recovery and cause an immediate improvement in fisheries habitat. 

● NYSDEC is developing pollution prevention regulations to require implementation of Toxic 

Chemical Reduction Plans for facilities that generate certain amounts/types of hazardous wastes 

or toxic chemicals. Many industries have already taken the initiative to institute pollution 

prevention practices. 

Stakeholders:

City of Rochester 

Genesee Basin Subcommittee - Government Policy Group 

Lake Ontario Central/Irondequoit Basin/Lake Ontario West Basin Subcommittees 

Monroe County Department for Planning and Development 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Alice Yeh

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-1865

FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

St. Lawrence River Area of Concern
Size and location: The St. Lawrence River Area of Concern (AOC) begins above the dams at the 

Massena Village, New York, water intake and follows the river downstream to the international 

boundary with Canada. It also includes portions of the Grasse, Raquette, and St. Regis Rivers. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's role is to integrate AOC issues into the Lake Ontario Lakewide 

Management Plan (LaMP) and the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (TMP). EPA also provided 

funding to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for actions aimed 

at improving ecosystem health by reducing toxic contamination. 

Organizations that initiated project:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption caused mainly by PCBs, mercury, mirex, and 

dioxin 

● Loss of fish and wildlife habitats caused by physical disturbances and contaminated sediments 

Actions taken or proposed: The St. Lawrence River AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated 

by the U.S. and/or Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is 

being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term course of action for environmental cleanup. RAP 

development began in 1988. The Stage I Report, completed in 1990, identified use impairments, their 

causes, and sources. The Stage II Report was completed in 1991 and includes the development of 

remedial strategies to (1) restore water quality and use impairments of the tributary rivers and 

St.Lawrence River, and (2) eliminate adverse impacts to the AOC from sources of pollutants at major 

hazardous waste sites. A Remedial Advisory Committee (RAC) was then appointed to represent all 

stakeholders and assist NYSDEC in RAP implementation. Actions that have been taken to implement the 

recommendations of the Stage II Report include: 

● Following EPA?s issuance of an Administrative Order, BALCOA has agreed to remediate all 

sites on its approximately 1400-hectare (3460-acre) plant at an estimated cost of up to $150 

million, for approximately 8 years. A secure landfill is to be completed by 1995 at a cost of $36 

million. 

● EPA released a proposed remedial project to remove 32,600 cubic meters (42,650 cubic yards) of 

PCB-contaminated St. Lawrence River sediments next to the Reynolds Metals Plant site for 

treatment and disposal in a specially prepared upland site on Reynolds property. The estimated 

cost of the work is $36.7 million. Reynolds has initiated the design phase for this work. 

● A significant reduction in the mass of PCBs discharged from Massena industries has been 
achieved by the installation of wastewater treatment systems, implementation of best management 

practices (BMPs), and interim remediation activities. 

● Interim wastewater treatment systems at ALCOA designed to remove PCBs and other 

contaminants from various waste streams, including the sanitary lagoon effluent, have been 

placed in operation. Eventually, all contaminated storm water and process water will receive 

appropriate treatment. 

● NYSDEC has completed nonpoint source assessment reports for each New York State county. A 

Priority Water Problem list has been prepared to rank impaired waterbodies. Various BMPs, 

including storm water management and agricultural methods, have been recommended. 

Stakeholders:

ALCOA 

Environment Canada 

General Motors 

International Joint Commission 

Massena Citizen Advisory Committee 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy 

Other industries 

Reynolds Metals 

The Mohawks at Akwesasne 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Alice Yeh

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-1865
FAX: (212) 264-2194

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

San Juan Bay
Size and location: Two hundred square kilometers (75 square miles) of land comprise this bay-canallagoon system on the northern coast of Puerto Rico, which extends from Punta Vacia Talega on the east 

to Isla de Cabras on the west. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees in the 

Program. 

Organization that initiated project:

The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board 

Major environmental problems:

● Heavy metals 

● High levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, mercury, nickel, thallium, nd zinc 

● Violations of Puerto Rico water quality standards for copper, lead, mercury, elenium, and zinc 

● Contaminated sediments 

● High levels of oxygen-depleting nutrient loads 

● Low dissolved oxygen levels 

● Repeated fish kills 

● Pathogens, including coliform 

● Floatables from garbage dumping 

● Hindered coral growth 

● Mangrove destruction 

● Nonpermitted dredging activities 

● Urban development causing sediment loads 

● Herbicides and pesticides 

● Sedimentation 

● Loss of seagrass beds 

Actions taken or proposed: San Juan Estuary was declared an estuary of national significance and added 

to the National Estuary Program in October 1992. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

(CCMP) that will recommend priority corrective actions to restore and maintain the estuarine resources is 

being developed for San Juan Estuary. 

Stakeholders:

Municipality of Toa Baja 

Municipality of Cataho 

Municipality of Guaynabo 
Municipality of San Juan 

Municipality of Carolina 

Municipality of Loiza 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewers Authority 

Puerto Rico Planning Board 

Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources 

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board 

Puerto Rico Planning Board 

Puerto Rico Ports Authority 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant Program 

Contact:

Tere Rodriguez

U.S. EPA Caribbean Field Office

Office 2A, Podiatry Center Building

1413 Fernandez Juncos Avenue

Santurce, Puerto Rico 00909

(809) 729-6931

FAX: (809) 729-7747
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Swartswood Lake
Size and location: Swartswood Lake is located in a state park in Sussex County, New Jersey. The lake is 

204 hectares (504 acres) in size, with a mean depth of 6.7 meters (22 feet) and a maximum depth of 128 

meters (42 feet). The watershed covers 4,523 hectares (11,196 acres), including the lake. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding grants management, and technical assistance. 

Organization that initiated project:

Sussex County Board of Freeholders 

Major environmental problems:

● High in-lake phosphorus 

● Reduced fish habitat 

● Excessive weed/algal growth 

● Anoxia caused by internal phosphorus recycling 

● Reduction in clarity 

Actions taken or proposed:

● Inactivation of internal phosphorus by hypolimnetic aeration 

● Weed harvesting 

● Development of a septic management plan 

● Implementation of homeowner best management practices 

● Control of future land development 

Stakeholders:

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Stillwater Township 

Sussex County Board of Freeholders 

Sussex County Department of Planning 

Tourism 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contacts:
EPA: 

Theresa Faber

U.S. EPA Region II

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278

(212) 264-8708

FAX: (212) 264-2194

State: 

Budd Cann

Water Monitoring Management

NJ Department of Environmental Protection (CN427)

Trenton, NJ 08625

(609) 292-0427

FAX: (609) 633-1095

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Region III Projects

Example projects submitted by Region III include the 18 projects listed below, plus its large-scale 

initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the multisite projects (see Part III). 

The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale and local-scale projects in this 

Region. 

The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of partners 

involved with EPA, and in their goals. Many are based on watersheds of inland rivers and streams, but 

others involve estuaries/coastal waters, solid waste handling areas, an interstate joint planning area, and a 

habitat protection initiative. Urban and agricultural nonpoint source problems, habitat fragmentation and 

loss, contaminated sediments, nutrient enrichment, toxics, threats to water supply/recreational uses and 

aquatic communities, off-road vehicles in sensitive areas, acid mine drainage, dams, point sources, toxic 

effects on wildlife, eutrophication, loss of seafood harvests, conflicting land uses, streambank 

degradation, and urban growth pressures are reported among the problems these projects seek to address. 

Actions taken include developing partnerships with a variety of local, state, and federal agencies, 

industries, private citizens' groups, and other organizations. Depending upon the environmental problems 

present, these multiorganizational teams might identify and assess important or degraded habitats; 

sponsor needed research; monitor and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources, and options for pollution 

prevention; propose development or revision of water quality standards; develop outreach and 

educational programs; or jointly develop management plans. Many of the local-scale projects also will 

enhance as well as benefit from the large-scale initiatives in the Region, which include the Chesapeake 

Bay Program, the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment (MAHA), the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment 

(MAIA), the Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System Project, the Environmental Monitoring and 
Assessment Program (EMAP) Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment, and the Chesapeake 

Bay/MAIA/MAHA Landscape-Scale Assessment. 

List of sites

Region III projects in the Inventory at this time include: 

● Anacostia River, DC, MD

● Canaan Valley, WV

● Christina River, DE, PA

● Clinch Valley Watershed, VA

● Delaware Estuary, NJ, DE*

● Delaware Inland Bays, DE

● Maryland's Atlantic Coastal Bays, MD

● Middle Fork River, WV

● National Capital Area (NCA) Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, DC, MD, VA

● Patuxent River Watershed, MD

● Pequea and Mill Creeks, PA

● Philadelphia Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, PA

● Pocono Habitat Demonstration Project, PA

● Prince William County Ecosystem Project, VA

● Silver Lake, DE

● Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV*

● Upper Tennessee River Basin, VA

● Virginia Eastern Shore Coastal Waters, VA

* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional 

boundaries are summarized under each Region in which they occur. 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Anacostia River
Size and location: The Anacostia River flows from Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in 

Maryland to the District of Columbia, where it empties into the Potomac River and eventually the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding and technical assistance for study of the 

Anacostia River watershed. In the future, EPA will place additional emphasis on enforcement in the 

watershed. 

Organizations that initiated project:

State of Maryland, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland, and the District of Columbia 

Major environmental problems:

● Nonpoint source runoff 

● Storm water problems 

● Toxic contamination of sediments 

● Loss of natural habitat for fish 

Actions taken or proposed: The Anacostia River is a priority for several different organizations. The 

White House Task Force on Ecosystem Management has included this river among its seven priority 

areas for study. The Chesapeake Executive Council has designated the Anacostia as one of three Regions 

of Concern for toxic pollution. EPA has targeted the Anacostia in its fiscal year 1995 budget as one of 

four priority ecosystems for Ecosystem Management. American Rivers has made the Anacostia River 

one of its top 10 priorities. The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee has outlined six goals, 

which serve as the strategic framework for the restoration of the Anacostia River. 

On July 14, 1994, an agreement on ecosystem management in the Chesapeake Bay was signed between 

EPA and 25 other federal agencies. Under this agreement the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is 

developing a Biennial Federal Workplan that provides a framework for all federal landowners to apply 

their technical resources to contribute to restoration of the Anacostia River through specific 

commitments including environmental compliance. One aspect of the agreement is support to the 

Anacostia River Demonstration Project in conjunction with the Anacostia Watershed Restoration 

Committee. The intent of the Anacostia River Demonstration Project is to provide an opportunity to 

apply innovative ecosystem management concept in an urban environment. Planning for this project will 

begin in fiscal year 1995. 

A Chesapeake Bay Regional Action Plan for the Anacostia is under development with EPA financial and 

technical support. The plan defines goals and strategies for remediation and prevention of toxic 

pollutants. The plan may include remediation measures for sediment, preventive measures for 

point/nonpoint sources, and public education. It will be completed in the fall of 1995. 
In fiscal year 1994, EPA awarded, through a cooperative agreement, $250,000 to the District of 

Columbia to conduct toxicological human health and ecological risk assessments for purposes of 

implementing risk reduction, pollution prevention, and public education and outreach. The objectives of 

this project are to identify, rank, reduce, and/or prevent pollutants in the impacted communities. EPA 

expects to provide additional support for this effort in fiscal year 1995. 

In fiscal year 1995, EPA will place additional emphasis on enforcement activities in the Anacostia 

watershed. EPA will identify facilities with significant adverse environmental impacts in the watershed. 

EPA will schedule inspections at selected facilities and determine environmental compliance. EPA will 

administer appropriate enforcement response to facilities in violation of environmental regulations. In 

addition, EPA is revising the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the District of 

Columbia's Blue Plains facility to conform with the National Combined Sewer Overflow Policy. 

Other activities include a U.S. Arboretum-led effort to develop a federal tributary strategy for 

landholders within the District of Columbia by the end of 1995. This tributary strategy will deal with 

meeting the nutrient reduction goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program in support of the District of 

Columbia. 

Stakeholders:

American Rivers 

Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee 

Anacostia Watershed Society 

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Friends of the Anacostia 

Georgetown University Law Center and Legal Defense Fund, Maryland 

Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland 

Washington Council of Governments 

Sierra Club 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Arboretum) 
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency 

The National Park Service 

Contacts:

Jon Capacasa

US EPA Region III (3DA00)

841 Chestnut Building

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-6529

FAX: (215) 597-8255

Dominique Lueckenhoff

US EPA Region III (3CB00)

841 Chestnut Building

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-8228

FAX: (215) 580-2023

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Canaan Valley
Size and location: Canaan Valley covers 142 square kilometers (55 square miles) and is located in 

Tucker County, West Virginia. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is a key player in the Canaan Valley Task Force and also provides 

funding for various projects and studies in the valley. 

Organization that initiated project:

The Canaan Valley Task Force 

Major environmental problems: Second-home development and off-road vehicle (ORV) use threaten 

sensitive wetlands. 

Actions taken or proposed: EPA created the Canaan Valley Task Force in July 1990. The Task Force is 

a public, private, and government partnership formed to ensure long-term environmental protection while 

allowing for reasonable and sustainable economic growth. The Task Force facilitates open and regular 

dialogue among all the interests in the valley. The Canaan Valley Task Force coalesces diverse, often 

competing interests into a working federal, state, local, and public partnership to address a 

comprehensive range of issues. The dialogue facilitates the resolution of controversial and sensitive 

issues of habitat protection, economic growth, and property rights. 

The following actions have been taken or are under way: 

● A land-use trends analysis through geographic information system applications. 

● Advance identification of wetlands. 

● Suspension of Nationwide Permits for surface mining, minor road crossings, and headwater and 

isolated wetlands. 

● Increased wetlands surveillance and enforcement. 

● Vigorous public outreach including numerous open public meetings and development of fact 

sheets and an informational brochure. 

● A wastewater assimilation study of the Blackwater River. 

● Two-year assistance to Tucker County for nontraditional means of wastewater treatment. 

● Studies of impacts from ORVs involving water quality and vegetative communities. 

● A study of the economic impact of the proposed Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

● An assessment of the headwater wetlands of the valley. 

● A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ground water study and development of a conceptual ground 

water flow model. 

● A USGS surface water study and development of a surface water model. 

Due in large part to the activities of the Task Force, the Monongahela Power Company, the largest 

landowner in the northern half of the valley where most of the sensitive wetlands are located, has 

prohibited the use of ORVs on its property, thereby reducing impacts on the wetlands ecosystem from 

this activity. The Task Force has also helped in the creation of the Canaan Valley National Wildlife 
Refuge. The first refuge acquisition was formally dedicated on October 22, 1994, as the Nation's 500th 

National Wildlife Refuge. As more sensitive habitat is acquired for the refuge, the integrity of the 

wetlands ecosystem will be enhanced. 

Stakeholders:

Brooks Bird Club 

Canaan Valley Landowners Association 

League of Women Voters 

Local Citizens Groups 

Local citizens 

Motorcycle Industry Council 

National Audubon Society 

National Park Service 

National Wildlife Federation 

The Nature Conservancy 

Timberline Council 

Trout Unlimited 

Tucker County Chamber of Commerce 

Tucker County Citizens for Progress 

Tucker County Commission 

Tucker County Convention and Visitor's Bureau 

Tucker County Development Authority 

Tucker County Planning Commission 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

West Virginia Audubon Council 

West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club 

West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection 

West Virginia Division of Izaak Walton League 

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources 

West Virginia Division of Tourism and Parks 

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy 

West Virginia Mountain Bike Association 

West Virginia Off-Highway Vehicle Association 

West Virginia Recreational Vehicle Association 

West Virginia Wildlife Federation 

Contact:

John Forren

U.S. EPA Region III (3ES42)

841 Chestnut Building

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-3361

FAX: (215) 597-7906

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Christina River
Size and location: The Christina River watershed encompasses more than 2590 square kilometers (1000 

square miles) and drains portions of southeastern Pennsylvania, Delaware, and a small portion of 

Maryland. The watershed lies within the Delaware River basin. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is a member of the management committee, the monitoring and 

modeling workgroup, and the nonpoint source workgroup. EPA is providing technical assistance as well 

as financial assistance through various types of grants. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 

Major environmental problems:

● Nutrient problems caused by point and nonpoint sources 

● Toxic pollutants 

● Threats to water supplies, major recreational areas, and aquatic life from urban and agricultural 

runoff as well as major point sources, including several hazardous waste sites 

Actions taken or proposed: Through a coordinated effort by Pennsylvania and Delaware, this area is in 

the first stages of developing a total maximum daily load (TMDL). Problems have been identified, and 

proposed short- and long-term monitoring strategies have been developed. The monitoring plan and 

proposed future studies for the development of control requirements have been approved by 

environmental officials in Pennsylvania, Delaware, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), and 

EPA. The monitoring program was initiated October 1, 1994. 

The approved plan calls for 3 years of monitoring in order to develop sufficient data to calibrate and 

verify the Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program water quality model. The last 2 years of the plan 

will be devoted to the development of low-flow TMDLs and control needs. 

The states, DRBC, and EPA have begun to factor in the nonpoint source problems in the basin. An 

interstate nonpoint source workgroup that will develop a workplan to address these problems has been 

established. This workplan will factor in, as much as possible, the ongoing monitoring activities 

described above. The receiving stream model noted above will be used to develop TMDLs and control 

needs for the problem areas within the basin. 

In addition, the states have initiated a ground water study for a portion of the watershed the Red Clay 

Creek watershed (between Pennsylvania and Delaware). Studies of ground water quality and quantity 

were conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (ground water supplies 70 to 80 percent of base flow yearround). The effects of ground water pumping, septic systems, and recharge by wastewater spray irrigation 

systems were examined. The potential for deep injection of wastewater was also examined and ruled out 
due to the geology of the basin. The ground water of the Red Clay Creek was found to be generally good, 

but there are warning signs of potential threats to ground water quality. 

Stakeholders:

Brandywine Conservancy 

Brandywine Valley Association 

Chester County Water Authority 

City of Newark 

City of Wilmington 

Conservation districts 

Delaware Nature Society 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Delaware River Basin Commission 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

New Castle County 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 

Red Clay Valley Association 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

U.S. Geological Survey 

White Clay Creek Watershed Association 

Contact:
Thomas Henry

U.S. EPA Region III (3WMI2)

841 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-9927

FAX: (215) 597-3359

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Clinch Valley Watershed
Size and location: This project focuses on the Clinch and Powell Rivers, located in southwestern 

Virginia. Their watersheds cover approximately 9840 square kilometers (3800 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has participated in the project by coordinating a watershed-based 

ecological risk assessment as a case study of the risk assessment process for broad, watershed-based 

problems. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems: Several endangered and threatened species of mussels and fish, 

threatened by: 

● Agricultural nonpoint source pollution 

● Construction 

● Dams 

● Mining 

● Residential nonpoint source pollution 

Actions taken or proposed: EPA is applying the risk assessment methodology to predict potential 

outcomes and risks of management options and to identify sites in the watershed that are at higher risk of 

loss and might require protection. 

Stakeholders:

Farmers 

Mining interests 

The Nature Conservancy 

Residents 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

U.S. EPA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contacts:
John Miller

U.S. EPA

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

(703) 603-8846

Suzanne Marcy

U.S. EPA

Office of Science and Technology

(202) 260-0689

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Delaware Estuary
Size and location: This project focuses on the tidal portion of the Delaware River between the falls at 

Trenton, New Jersey, and the mouth of the Delaware Bay (between Cape May, New Jersey, and Cape 

Henlopen, Delaware). The project area, however, encompasses the entire river basin. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding to the Program. EPA (Regions II and III) also provides technical and programmatic support by 

the commitment of four full-time employees. Additional management and staff support is provided on an 

as-needed basis. 

Organizations that initiated project: The States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware petitioned 

EPA for inclusion of the Delaware Estuary in the National Estuary Program. 

Major environmental problems:

● Toxics in sediments, fish, and birds 

● Loss of diversity and loss and fragmentation of certain habitat types 

● Nonpoint source pollution 

● Water use: supply, quality, and allocation 

Actions taken or proposed: The Delaware Estuary was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary 

Program in 1988. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan is currently being developed for 

the Delaware Estuary that advocates a watershed protection approach in implementing the action plans. It 

will provide a basinwide perspective in managing land use, toxics, habitat protection, and water use 

issues. 

One project already under way is the mapping of habitat for priority species throughout the estuary. The 

maps will be designed for use by local governments to help them protect habitat through improved 

planning procedures. Land uses and practices appropriate for such areas, coordination of interstate 

management plans, and inclusion of the important species in Environmental Impact Statements will be 

proposed. Interstate fish advisories will be coordinated, and loading limits for selected toxicants (total 

maximum daily loads) will be established. The program will provide technical support for watershedbased land planning for storm water management and nonpoint source control. 

The program is also developing a nonpoint source plan that will assist states in prioritizing watersheds, 

an action plan to address the impacts of toxics on fisheries and raptors, and an action plan for restoration 

of urban stream corridors. The program is proposing development of a long-term environmental policy 

plan that would integrate environmental concerns into decision-making by all sectors of society to 

achieve sustainable development. 

Other activities include: 
● Examining potential water supply shortages in certain areas of the Delaware basin (such as the 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system and the Triassic lowland bedrock aquifers) and 

encouraging protective action by water and wastewater utilities. 

● Providing tools and technical assistance to local governments in support of improved land use 

planning. 

● Encouraging and providing incentives for increased regional planning. 

● Improving coordination of water supply planning to address water quantity and quality planning. 

● Addressing toxics loadings from ground water and nonpoint sources. 

● Developing a regional information management service that will facilitate sharing of information. 

● Continuing and expanding the ongoing public participation program. 

● Coordinating and expanding the monitoring program of the three states. 

Stakeholders:

Anglers 

Business and industry 

Commercial fishing 

Environmental groups 

Local and regional agencies 

Local citizens 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Private organizations 

The States of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contacts:

Marria O'Malley Walsh/Robert Tudor
U.S. EPA Region III

841 Chestnut Building

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(410) 573-6838 (Marria)

(215) 597-9977 (Robert)

FAX: (215) 597-1850

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Delaware Inland Bays
Size and location: The Delaware Inland Bays Estuary program addresses the water quality and 

environmental problems of three interconnected watersheds (the Indian River, the Rehoboth, and the 

Little Assawoman Bays) in Sussex County, Delaware. The drainage area is approximately 775 square 

kilometers (300 square miles), with a water surface area of 83 square kilometers (32 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees in the 

program. 

Organization that initiated project:

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Major environmental problems:

● Habitat loss/modification due to erosion, sedimentation, dredging, and filling 

● Eutrophication (nutrient over-enrichment) 

Actions taken or proposed: The Delaware Inland Bays Estuary was selected for inclusion in the National 

Estuary Program in 1988. The draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the 

Estuary has been completed and recommends a five-tiered approach to resolving the problems. These 

efforts include: 

● (1) A Public Education and Outreach Program, which explains the benefits of the estuary, and the 

methods of preservation. 

● (2) An Agricultural Source Action Plan, which proposes management of agricultural wastes and 

fertilizers. 

● (3) A Habitat Protection Action Plan, which proposes various methods to control the loss of 

significant habitat and the preservation of existing aquatic and terrestrial ranges. 

● (4) An Industrial, Municipal and Septic System Action Plan, which proposes a pollution control 

strategy and a long-term capital expenditure program for wastewater treatment. 

● (5) A Land Use Action Plan, which evaluates current land-use practices and proposed mitigation 

measures. 

In March 1990 the Inland Bays Recovery Initiative was launched. This 2-year program has been integral 

to the estuary program. The purpose of the Recovery Initiative was to field-test ideas that could be 

central to the CCMP. In addition to the Recovery Initiative, Action Plan Demonstration Projects designed 

to test new techniques were started. Lessons learned from these projects will influence a number of the 

tactics selected for implementation in the CCMP. 

Other activities in the estuary include: 
● Preparation of the Water-Use Activity Impacts Report in 1989, which will serve as a basis for 

developing a Water-Use Plan for managing use of the bays' waters. 

● Development, by the University of Delaware Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service, of the Inland 

Bays Citizen Monitoring Program, which is monitoring 30 to 50 sites using more than 50 

volunteers. 

● Use of a geographic information system to provide topographical and other information useful in 

planning water and wetland programs and in issuing permits. 

● Identification, by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, of areas in which to focus water 

quality treatment technologies as part of a national Hydrologic Unit Area project. Results will be 

used to further refine existing agricultural best management practices. 

● Assistance to landowners for implementing conservation practices that include building structures 

for water control and waste management, tree planting, buffer stripping, and managing wetlands. 

This assistance is provided through the Indian River Watershed Protection Plan. 

Stakeholders:

Delaware Department of Agriculture 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Farmers 

Landowners and environmentalists 

Local citizens 

Resource users (anglers, swimmers, etc.) 

Sussex County Council 

Sussex Conservation District 

Sussex County local governments 

Tourist industry 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Various industries 
Contact:

John Schneider

Delaware Inland Bays Estuary Program

DE Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

P.O. Box 1401, 89 Kings Highway

Dover, DE 19903

(302) 739-4590/5409

FAX: (302) 739-6140

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Maryland's Atlantic Coastal Bays
Size and location: Maryland's Atlantic coastal bays are located on the east coast of the state behind the 

barrier islands of Assateague and Fenwick. These bays consist of Chincoteague, Newport, Sinepuxent, 

Isle of Wight, and Assawoman Bays and are within Worcester County, Maryland, extending between the 

Delaware and Virginia state lines. The bays watershed encompasses 484 square kilometers (187 square 

miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: The bays were described in the EPA Region III Near Coastal Waters 

Strategy as a priority coastal watershed. As a result, the Region has provided grant funds to the state to 

initiate planning and assessment activities in the watershed. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Maryland Department of the Environment-Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Management Administration 

Major environmental problems:

● Rapid development causing loss of habitat, increased nonpoint source storm water runoff, and 

increased nutrient loadings to ground water via septic systems 

● Water quality degradation 

● Losses of habitat and living resources 

● Conflicting land uses 

● Excessive anthropogenic pollutant sources 

● Loss of wetlands and shallow water habitat from dredging and filling activities 

● Closure of shellfishing grounds 

● Excessive loadings of fecal coliform bacteria, sediments, and nutrients primarily from nonpoint 

sources 

Actions taken or proposed: A synoptic report that evaluated all relevant scientific studies performed in 

the coastal bays, identified research needs, provided an annotated bibliography, assessed the principal 

subbasins responsible for the majority of pollutant loadings, and provided a number of management 

options to control the pollutant loads entering the bays was prepared by the Maryland Department of the 

Environment with funding provided by EPA. 

A more in-depth evaluation of the bays watershed performed by the state found that the St. Martins 

River, the largest tributary to the coastal bays, is experiencing significant water quality degradation from 

point and nonpoint sources of pollution from excessive loadings of nutrients. In a companion project, the 

State of Maryland received an additional grant from EPA to apply a nutrient model to the St. Martins 

River and the upper coastal bays to identify priority subwatersheds that will become the focus for followup pollution abatement and control activities. 

The Maryland Department of the Environment has completed a report that contains estimated loadings to 

the bays ground water by nonpoint sources and will conduct a similar follow-up study that will examine 
the St. Martins River area. 

Stakeholders:

City of Ocean City 

National Park Service 

State of Maryland 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Worcester County, MD 

Contact:

Edward Ambrogio

U.S. EPA Region III (3ES41)

841 Chestnut St.

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-3697

FAX: (215) 597-1850

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Middle Fork River
Size and location: The Middle Fork River Watershed encompasses 391 square kilometers (151 square 

miles) in the hills of central West Virginia. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA helped to initiate the project, and has provided financial and technical 

assistance. EPA is also a member of the Middle Fork River Policy Steering Committee. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems: Acid mine drainage from abandoned mines severely impacts drinking 

water sources, aquatic life including a trout fishery, aesthetics, and recreational activities. 

Actions taken or proposed: Critical areas have been defined based on acid loads. A steering committee 

reviews restoration plans for sites such as anoxic limestone trenches and wetlands. An engineered 

wetland has been installed. The project has helped generate additional state and federal funds for mine 

reclamation activities. It has helped the state develop a restoration fund, which will be used on a priority 

basis for reclaiming mined areas. 

Six ground water monitoring stations were installed near Cassity, West Virginia. Two were placed 

outside the impacted area to collect background data. The sites, which are monitored twice a year, 

include naturally occurring springs and water. Additional ground water monitoring occurs near Kittle 

Flats, West Virginia. Ground water seepage is monitored as part of the acid mine drainage control and 

abatement project in the watershed. The monitoring will help assess the effectiveness of the anoxic 

limestone drains that are being installed. 

Stakeholders:

Recreationalists 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Office of Surface Mining 

West Virginia Division of Energy 

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources 

West Virginia State Soil Conservation Committee 

Contact:

Henry Zygmunt
U.S. EPA Region III (3WM11)

841 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-3429

FAX: (215) 597-3359

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

National Capital Area (NCA) Municipal 

Solid Waste Initiative
Size and location: The NCA project includes Baltimore City and surrounding counties with a total 

population of 2,399,000; Washington, DC, and the surrounding counties with a population of 3,267,000; 

and Richmond, Virginia, and the surrounding counties with a population of 893,000. Total population for 

all three NCA cities and the surrounding counties is 6,559,000. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA and the Institute for Local Self-Reliance are Partners in a Cooperative 

Agreement. 

Organization that initiated project:

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) 

Major environmental problems: The NCA region is estimated to generate over 11,000,000 tons of 

municipal solid waste per year. 

Action taken or proposed: The goal of the project is to stimulate economic development, create new 

jobs, and launch scrap-based businesses and manufacturing enterprises in Washington, DC, Baltimore, 

Maryland, and Richmond, Virginia. Secondary materials generated in the cities will be utilized by scrapbased enterprises and manufacturers in the region, diverting wastes from disposal. Scrap-based use of 

recyclable materials reduces city disposal costs, creates local markets, provides jobs in each of the NCA 

cities, and increases regional economic activity. The project will also document that diversion of 
materials from the landfill reduces the amount of greenhouse gasses generated. 

Stakeholders:

Baltimore, Maryland 

Richmond, Virginia 

Washington, DC 

U.S. EPA 

Contact:

Deborah Gallman, 5306W

U.S. EPA

(202) 260-4683

FAX: (202) 260-4196

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Patuxent River Watershed
Size and location: Approximately 238,360 hectares (590,000 acres) in Maryland, in the suburban 

Washington/Baltimore corridor (Mont- gomery, Howard, Anne Arundel, Prince George's, Charles, 

Calvert, and St. Mary's Coun- ties), in the watershed of Chesapeake Bay. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) has been funding 

development of integrated ecosys- tem and economic models of the watershed for the purpose of policy 

analysis. The models are designed to be useful in a cost-benefit and sustainability framework. The 

ecosystem model is a dynamic process-based simulation model that covers the natural ecosystems of the 

water- shed. The model makes predictions about the future condition of the ecosystems of the watershed. These predictions include the type of ecosystem or habitat that will occur in actual geographic 

locations within the watershed, as well ecosystem process type information such as productivity. The 

model is based on a spatial grid cell format and also uses geographic infor- mation systems (GIS). The 

economic models are still under development (also in a spatial, GIS framework) and include a model of 

human land use change (e.g. agricultural to residential, low- density to high-density residential, etc.) and 

models of agricultural management practices. Feedback loops between the ecosystem and economic 

models are being developed. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) 

Major environmental problems: The models will be designed to evaluate the ecological and eco- nomic 

effects and benefits of various environ- mental problems. These include agricultural runoff of nutrients, 

wetland protection and restoration, county level zoning, residential development, watershed 

sustainability. 

Actions taken or proposed: None yet. 

Stakeholders:

Interested parties will include OPPE for analysis of benefits of Farm Bill, Chesapeake Bay Program, and 

EPA's Office of Water 

Contact:

EPA: 

Michael Brody

(202) 260-2783

FAX: (202) 260-1935

E-mail: brody.michael@epamail.epa.gov
Mary Jo Kealy

(202) 260-5728

U.S. EPA OPPE

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Pequea and Mill Creeks
Size and location: The Pequea and Mill Creeks watersheds are located in southeastern Pennsylvania in 

Lancaster and Chester Counties. The watersheds total 54,540 hectares (135,000 acres). Land use in the 

watershed is predominantly agricultural; 63 percent of the land is devoted to cropland and 13 percent to 

pasture. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided financial and technical assistance. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

Major environmental problems:

● Agricultural runoff 

● Stream bank erosion 

● Nutrient enrichment 

● Pesticide contamination 

Actions taken or proposed: Surface water in the Pequea and Mill Creeks is used for drinking, irrigation, 

boating, fishing, water sports, watering livestock, wildlife habitat, and industry. Four tributaries are 

protected as trout-stocked fisheries, seven areas as cold-water fisheries, and five areas as high-quality 

cold-water fisheries. Ground water resources of the Pequea and Mill Creeks watershed are the primary 

source of private and public drinking water, livestock water, and barn/milkhouse water. According to the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PaDER), 93.6 stream kilometers (58.5 stream 

miles) within the watershed have been degraded by agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution. 

This initiative will implement a comprehensive surface and ground water watershed program including 

the establishment of total maximum daily loads for the Pequea and Mill Creek basins in Lancaster 

County, Pennsylvania. 

State and local coordinating committees have been formed to implement a comprehensive watershed 

initiative. These committees have been met regularly for several years. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), EPA, U.S Geological Survey (USGS), PaDER, the Pennsylvania Department of 

Agriculture (PDA), the Lancaster County Conservation District (LCCD), several private consultants, and 

the Pennsylvania Fish and Game Commission are all members of these committees. 

The Pequea and Mill Creeks watershed was chosen as a Hydrologic Unit Area by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) in February 1991. Under this designation, USDA provides technical and financial 

assistance to farmers in the watershed for the implementation of best management practices. USDA has 

provided assistance to farmers in the watershed over the past 3 years, with the goals of significantly 

reducing nutrient, bacteria, and pesticide contamination to surface and ground waters and controlling 

sedimentation from runoff and erosion. 
In addition, the Pequea-Mill watershed is being used in a cooperative computer modeling effort among 

the PaDER-Bureau of Land and Water Conservation, Penn State University, and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service state offices in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Data from the watershed will be 

used in the development of the National Agricultural Pesticide Risk Assessment. 

USGS is conducting a number of studies. A ground water survey was initiated in 1991. USGS began a 

watershed-wide baseline Water Quality Characterization Project in July 1992. The purpose of this longterm study is to document changes in surface water quality for storm and base flow conditions in three 

watersheds within the Pequea-Mill project area, qualitatively link the water quality changes to 

agricultural practices and land use changes, and determine water quality changes due to increased 

livestock production by comparing the data to water quality data collected in the basin in earlier years. 

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is conducting a biological assessment in the Muddy Run 

basin. The purpose of the study is to compare existing fish and benthic macro-invertebrate populations to 

populations after implementation of stream fencing for livestock exclusion and other conservation 

practices. Data for the preproject condition were collected in 1991. A follow-up assessment will be 

conducted in 1996. 

A Wellhead Protection project for two public water supply wellfields is also being developed within the 

watershed. The local township officials of the boroughs, LCCD, and PDA are inventorying the existing 

sources of contamination within these Wellhead Protection Areas and PSC Engineers (consultant for the 

boroughs) is developing ordinances to protect the pubic wells from contamination. 

EPA is currently pursuing a Geographic Information Systems initiative in the Pequea and Mill Creeks 

watershed. 

This watershed is in the top l0 percent of the Pennsylvania nonpoint source priority watersheds, is on the 

Pennsylvania 303(d) list, and is a priority for the Chesapeake Bay Program, Ground Water Protection 

Program, and Public Drinking Water Supervision Program. 

Stakeholders:

Environmental advocacy groups 

Lancaster County Conservation District 

Lancaster County Planning Commission 

Local farmers 

Pennsylvania Agronomic Products Association 
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 

Pennsylvania Fish Commission 

Pennsylvania Game Commission 

Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Geological Survey 

USDA Farm Service Agency 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Contact:

Henry Zygmunt

U.S. EPA Region III (3WM11)

841 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-3429

FAX: (215) 597-3359

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Philadelphia Municipal Solid Waste 

Initiative
Size and location: The City of Philadelphia, with a population of 1.7 million, is one of six U.S. cities 

with a population of over 1 million people. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA and the City of Philadelphia are Partners in a Cooperative Agreement. 

Organization that initiated the project:

The City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Major environmental problems: The City of Philadelphia estimates that 173,623 metric tons (190,985 

tons) of municipal solid waste were generated in the last year. 

Action taken or proposed: The goal of the project is to divert much of the city's municipal solid waste 

from landfilling to extend landfill life. Another goal of the project is to attract manufacturers and 

processors to utilize the secondary materials generated in the city. This will create new jobs and ancillary 

businesses, causing economic growth for the entire city. 

Stakeholders:

Philadelphia 
U.S. EPA 

Contact:

Deborah Gallman (5306W)

U.S. EPA

401 M street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-4683

(202) 260-4196

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Pocono Habitat Demonstration Project
Size and location: The Pocono Project focuses on county-level activities, with additional implementation 

of actions within several watersheds. These watersheds include the Tobyhanna watershed, which covers 

485 square kilometers (187 square miles), and the McMichaels Creek watershed, which covers 293 

square kilometers (113 square miles), both located within Monroe County, Pennsylvania. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided technical assistance, limited funding, facilitation, and 

coordination. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problem:

Development pressures 

Actions taken or proposed: Growth and development in this biologically diverse area threaten to cause 

degradation and/or loss of valuable upland and wetland ecosystems, which would increase the likelihood 

for adverse impacts on water quality. This demonstration project is aimed at proactively bringing to the 

forefront issues related to growth and development that might pose threats before further alteration of the 

landscape jeopardizes the future of the area as a viable recreational and biologically rich region. 

Planning actions that have taken place include: 

● Establishment of an Advisory Ground and Steering Committee of local stakeholders. 

● Development of a project proposal and workplan. 

● Through consensus, development of a vision statement. 

● Identification of goals and objectives. 

Several research actions have been completed, including: 

● Inventory of biological diversity as described by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gap Analysis 

process (Cornell University and New York Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit). 

● Evaluation of different conservation/development options for Monroe County (Harvard 

University). 

Additional research actions are currently taking place, including: 

● Collection and integration of data layers on a geographic information system. 

● Assessment of risks to biodiversity (EPA - Corvallis Laboratory). 

Ongoing activities include: 
● Implementation of goal to identify landscape linkages/ecosystem mosaics with input to Monroe 

County Comprehensive Plan. 

● Workshops for developers on open space design. 

● Outreach to specific developers and township officials. 

● Establishment of stream reference sites for biological monitoring. 

Stakeholders:

Brodhead Watershed Association: Economic Development Council of Northeast Pennsylvania 

Monroe County Conservation District 

Monroe County Planning Commission 

Penn State Extension 

Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources 

Pennsylvania Game Commission 

Pocono Mountains Chamber of Commerce 

Pocono Mountains Vacation Bureau 

Pocono Plan Alliance 

State and private forestry 

Tobyhanna Watershed Association 

Township officials 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Forest Service 

Contact:

Susan Dowell

U.S. EPA Region III (3ES43)

841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-0355

FAX: (215) 597-7906

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Prince William County Ecosystem 

Project
Size and location: Prince William County is located in northern Virginia, southwest of Washington, DC. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding (approximately $100,000 to date), has 

participated in the Project Steering Committee, and is an NNEMS Fellow. 

Major environmental problems: Urban growth, increased impervious surface, and associated 

environmental degradation. The county's population grew more than 40 percent during the 1980s. Now at 

1/4 million residents, the county continues to exhibit steady growth. 

Organization that initiated project:

EPA in cooperation with the county government 

Actions taken or proposed:

● Pollution prevention 

● Watershed resource inventories 

● Protection and restoration of wetlands and stream resources 

● Implementation of innovative stormwater best management practices (BMPs) 

● Watershed Management Plan 

● Monitoring 
Stakeholders:

5 federal agencies 

5 state agencies 

3 local agencies 

2 universities 

Local citizens 

Contacts:

Art Springarn, EPA Region III

(215) 597-3360

Fran Eargle, EPA Headquarters

(202) 260-1954

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Silver Lake
Size and location: Silver Lake is located just north of downtown Dover, Delaware. The surface area of 

the lake is 67 hectares (167 acres), and the lake drains approximately 7700 hectares (19,000 acres). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided financial and technical assistance. 

Organization that initiated project:

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Major environmental problems: Algal blooms and bacterial contamination due to agricultural and urban 

runoff 

Actions taken or proposed: Delaware received a Clean Lakes Program grant in 1987 to conduct a Phase 

I diagnostic/feasibility study for Silver Lake and its watershed. This study analyzed the lake's condition 

and determined the causes of that condition, examined the watershed to determine the sources of 

pollution, and then evaluated solutions and recommendations for the most feasible procedures to restore 

and protect lake water quality. 

In 1990, a Phase II Clean Water Lakes grant was awarded. The Phase II project will translate the Phase I 

recommendations into action. Phase II projects implement in-lake restoration work, as well as critical 

watershed management activities, to control nonpoint source pollution to a lake. A seven-part plan has 

been initiated by the participating stakeholders, and the project is coordinated by the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. The plan includes: 

● Development of a nature preserve. 

● Modification of lake use for bank stabilization. 

● Working with property owners to install vegetative cover, riprap, etc. for shoreline erosion 

control. 

● Retrofit storm water control ponds entering Silver Lake to include water quality enhancements. 

● Enforcement of construction runoff regulations. 

● Installation of agricultural best management practices. 

● Public education. 

● Follow-up monitoring. 

Storm water detention basins will be modified to reduce sediment and phosphorus loadings into the lake. 

Citizen volunteers have placed fish attraction structures in the lake. 

Stakeholders:

Area farmers 

Area merchants 
City of Dover 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

Kent County Conservation District 

Lake users 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Contact:

Christine Reichgott

U.S. EPA Region III (3WM11)

841 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-3364

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Tri-State Initiative
Size and location: Covering 600,000 hectares (1.5 million acres) and including 368,000 people, the TriState Initiative is located where the states of Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky meet and includes the 

counties of Boyd and Greenup (Kentucky), Lawrence and Scioto (Ohio), and Wayne and Cabell (West 

Virginia). 

Nature of EPA involvement: To assist in a collective effort to define, remediate, and prevent 

environmental threats in the tri-state area. 

Organization that initiated the project:

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems: This area was selected because of the following high risk/priority 

indicators: pollutants released into the environment; known/suspected environmental problems; local 

meteorological conditions; and the level of public concern expressed to EPA. 

Actions taken or proposed: The Air Quality, Risk Analysis, Pollution Prevention, Geographic 

Information System (GIS), and Public Relations workgroups are currently working on the following 

projects: Industry and Community Discussions, Risk Screening/GIS Mapping, Air Toxics Study, 

Pollution Prevention, and a Surface Water Study. Teams on the inactive status include Groundwater, 

Waste, and Compliance. 

Stakeholders:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

EPA Regions III, IV and V 

Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection 

Kentucky Partners 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission 

Portsmouth Local Air Quality Agency 

West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection 

Contact:
Richard Schleyer

U.S. EPA Region V

Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J0)

(312) 353-5089

FAX: (312) 353-8289

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Upper Tennessee River Basin
Size and location: The Upper Tennessee River basin contains the Clinch, Powell, and Holston River 

basins in southwest Virginia. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA participates in a Nature Conservancy-led working group and has 

provided funding for an interagency agreement and Clean Water Act section 104(b)(3) and section 319 

grants for watershed restoration. 

Organization that initiated project:

The Nature Conservancy 

Major environmental problems:

● Treated and untreated point sources (untreated point sources are the more significant problem) 

● Nonpoint sources from agriculture, urban runoff, and coal mining 

● Threats to habitat of endangered species 

Actions taken or proposed: The Nature Conservancy launched its Clinch Valley Bioreserve in 1988 and 

brought other stakeholders together to plan restoration and protection activities. The Virginia Division of 

Soil and Water has adopted many subwatersheds as high priorities for non-point source pollution 

controls. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality placed a ban on halogen-based sewage 

treatment systems in endangered species waters. More stringent water quality standards have also been 

adopted for other pollutants. The Nature Conservancy has completed a 5-year strategic plan for the 

watershed. 

Caves, fissures, sinkholes, sinking streams, and underground streams in this limestone karst area serve as 

direct recharge areas to ground water. Nonpoint source impacts to the ground water from poor 

agricultural and land-use practices are being addressed through the implementation of appropriate best 

management practices (BMPs). To prevent cattle from reaching the streams and to buffer the nonpoint 

source loading from fields, alternative drinking water sources for cattle, fencing, buffer strips adjacent to 

sinkholes and cave entrances, rotational grazing, and permanent vegetation cover on critically eroded 

sites will be installed. Conservation planning, septic tank installation, and the removal of trash will also 

occur. Hydrogeologic studies will be conducted to define, to the extent practical, ground water drainage 

patterns and spring discharge sites for future karst BMP implementation. Surface water monitoring will 

occur. 

Stakeholders:

Local governments 

The Nature Conservancy 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Contact:

Victoria Binetti

U.S. EPA Region III (3WM50)

841 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-6511

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Virginia Eastern Shore Coastal Waters
Size and location: A portion of the Virginia eastern shore coastal waters lies within The Nature 

Conservancy s Virginia Coast Reserve. The Reserve encompasses 162 square kilometers (62.5 square 

miles); includes 14 barrier islands, tidal marshes, and waterfront mainland sites; and extends along the 

Atlantic coast of Virginia's eastern shore. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The Virginia eastern shore coastal waters were described in the EPA 

Region III Near Coastal Waters Strategy as a priority coastal watershed. As a result, the Region has 

provided grant funds to assist The Nature Conservancy in developing conservation plans to protect the 

nearshore waters from pollution related to land use practices. 

Organization that initiated project:

The Nature Conservancy - Virginia Coast Reserve 

Major environmental problems:

● Development pressures 

● Nonpoint source pollution from farms 

● Failed septic tanks 

● Point source loadings from seafood processing plants 

Actions taken or proposed: Under an EPA grant, The Nature Conservancy has begun work with a local 

landowner and a multidisciplinary group of university researchers to develop and implement a model 

protection initiative for farmland that encompasses several subwatersheds to Hog Island Bay. The 

initiative has prioritized the threats to the subwatersheds via an ecological risk assessment and is working 

with the land-owner and local officials to develop model land use plans and a model conservation 

easement. This model conservation easement can then be used to protect seaside farmlands that are at 

risk from ecologically unsound development. 

As a complement to the farmland conservation easement initiative, The Nature Conservancy, with the 

assistance of an EPA grant, is undertaking a model waterfront village protection initiative to address key 

threats associated with development of Virginia Eastern Shore seaside towns and villages. The 

Conservancy plans to develop a sustainable development plan and implement a model protection 

initiative at Willis Wharf, one of five waterfront towns and villages on the Eastern Shore s seaside, 

working in close partnership with the local citizens, businesses, and government. 

The Nature Conservancy has also sponsored studies, including the Broadwater Macrosite Model 

Watershed Protection Initiative of loadings of nutrients to both ground and surface waters at selected 

sites on the Chesapeake Bay. A citizen-run water monitoring project Water Quality Monitoring Initiative 

monitors both ground and surface water in the watershed. 

Stakeholders:
Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission 

Citizens for a Better Eastern Shore 

Northampton County Board of Supervisors 

The Nature Conservancy 

Town of Exmore 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Water Quality Consortium 

Working Watermens Association 

Contact:

Edward Ambrogio

U.S. EPA Region III (3ES41)

841 Chestnut St.

Philadelphia, PA 19107

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Region IV Projects

Example projects submitted by Region IV include the 33 projects listed below, plus its large-scale 

initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the multisite projects (see Part III). 

The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale and local-scale projects in this 

Region. 

The Region's projects vary considerably in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the type of 

partners involved with EPA, and in their goals. The projects submitted range from research projects 

assessing ecological risks at a specific site to established watershed projects such as the Savannah River 

and Flint Creek projects. Many are based on large river basins, small- to moderate-size streams, wetlands 

Advance Identification areas, and several bayous, bays, and estuaries. Other projects involve waste sites 

and ecological monitoring, assessment, and research sites. 

The Savannah and Flint Creek projects were selected as Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) projects 

and follow the principles of the WPA, such as involving stakeholders, addressing a broad array of 

environmental problems, and applying integrated solutions in priority areas. For example, the Savannah 

River watershed is a very large, interstate river basin encompassing over 10,000 square miles. The 

Region is currently seeking the issues that are most important to the stakeholders within the watershed. 

Solutions to these issues will be developed by using the authorities, expertise, and resources of the 

stakeholders. 

Agricultural runoff, eutrophication, water flow alteration, wetland loss or degradation, sedimentation, 

aquatic and terrestrial habitat loss or degradation, threats to sensitive areas, declines in fisheries, toxics 
and heavy metals, pathogens, contaminated sediments, industrial wastes, urban runoff, hypoxia, 

industrial discharges, seagrass die-off, forestry nonpoint source impacts, and airborne pollutants are 

reported among the problems these projects seek to address. Actions taken include developing 

partnerships with a variety of local, state, and federal agencies, industries, private citizens' groups, and 

other organizations. Depending upon the environmental problems present, these multiorganizational 

teams might identify and assess important or degraded habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor and 

analyze loading rates, pollutant sources, and options for pollution prevention; propose development or 

revision of water quality standards; develop outreach and educational programs; or jointly develop 

management plans. 

Many of the local-scale projects also will enhance as well as benefit from the large-scale initiatives in the 

Region, which include the Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB) Initiative, the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative, the SAMAB Landscape-Scale Assessment, the Gulf of 

Mexico Program, the South Florida Ecosystem Initiative, and the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative, as 

well as parts of the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA). 

List of sites

Region IV projects in the Inventory at this time include: 

● ACF/ACT Comprehensive Study, AL, FL, GA

● Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, NC

● Back Bay of Biloxi Ecosystem Assessment, MS

● Bayou Chico Ecological Assessment, FL

● Bayou Grande Ecological Assessment, FL

● Bayou Texar Ecological Assessment, FL

● Cahaba River Basin Project, AL

● Carteret County Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, NC

● Central Dougherty Plain Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, GA

● Charleston Harbor Project, SC

● Escambia River Watershed Project, FL

● Flint Creek, AL

● Florida Bay Algal Bloom Monitoring Project, FL

● Florida Everglades Mercury Ecological Risk Assessment, FL

● Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, FL

● Florida Keys Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, FL

● Huntsville Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, AL

● Indian River Lagoon, FL

● Land-of-Sky Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, NC

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO*
● Loxahatchee River Basin Wetland Planning Project, FL

● Mobile Bay Restoration Demonstrations, AL

● Pearl River Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, MS

● Pensacola Bay Watershed Evaluation, FL

● Rookery Bay Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, FL

● Sarasota Bay, FL

● Savannah River Basin, FL, GA, SC

● South Florida Wetlands Permitting and Mitigation Strategy, FL

● Tampa Bay, FL

● Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV*

● Weeks Bay Estuarine Research Project, AL

● West Broward County Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, FL

● West Chatham County Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, GA

● West Kentucky Coalfield Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, KY

* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional 

boundaries are summarized under each Region in which they occur. 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

ACF/ACT Comprehensive Study
Size and location: The Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint River basins and Alabama/Coosa/Tallapoosa 

River basins (ACF/ACT) comprehensive study encompasses six major river basins in the States of 

Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is involved in an advisory capacity on the overall management 

coordination committee and is an active participant in the Water Quality Taskforce, along with providing 

monitoring and assessment assistance. 

Organization that initiated project: The Mobile District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 

and the States of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida are cooperative partners in this effort to resolve the 

present and future water quality and quantity problems and to develop a management plan to best use the 

waters for the overall benefit of all parties. 

Major environmental problems:> The major environmental problems being addressed are 

eutrophication due to point and nonpoint source nutrient loadings to the reservoirs, water flow 

requirements for aquatic habitat, protection of the fisheries, protection of the environmentally sensitive 

Apalachicola Bay system, assurance of safe drinking water, and others. 

Actions taken or proposed: Alternative management strategies will be developed to evaluate the impacts 

of increased treatment for point source discharges and alternative flow release options from the many 

COE and other power generation dams. 

Stakeholders:

Alabama 

Army COE 

Florida 

Georgia 

Local governments 

U.S. EPA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Contacts:

Mike Eubanks

Mobile COE

Inland Environment

Mobile, AL

Jim Greenfield

Water Division

EPA Region IV

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-2126 ext.6597

FAX: 347-3269

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Albemarle-Pamlico Sound
Size and location: The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary is composed of seven sounds with several rivers, 

which in turn drain more than 77,700 square kilometers (30,000 square miles) of land. A total of 36 

counties in northeastern North Carolina and all or part of 19 counties and independent cities in 

southeastern Virginia compose the watershed. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees in the 

Program. 

Organization that initiated project:

State of North Carolina 

Major environmental problems:

● Declines in fishery productivity 

● Impaired health of aquatic resources 

● Impairment of nursery area function 

● Eutrophication and sedimentation 

● Fish kills 

● Habitat loss 

● Shellfish closures 

● Toxic contamination 

Actions taken or proposed: The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary was selected for inclusion in the National 

Estuary Program by EPA in 1987. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that 

recommends priority corrective actions to restore and maintain the estuarine resources was officially 

accepted by the Governor of North Carolina and EPA in November 1994. The Albemarle-Pamlico 

Estuarine Study Management Conference proposes to coordinate implementation of the CCMP through a 

Coordinating Council and five regional councils organized within watersheds. The CCMP calls upon 

local governments and citizens to protect the estuary through stronger state and local land use policies, 

land stewardship, best management practices, and public education. The CCMP stresses: 

● Voluntary programs with strong incentives for implementing the various recommendations in the 

CCMP. 

● Land and water use plans. 

● Improved wetland and habitat protection. 

During development of the CCMP, several demonstration projects were undertaken to show the viability 

of final recommendations for restoration of the estuary. These demonstration projects included habitat 

restoration, storm water management, animal waste management, and fishery by-catch reduction. 

Stakeholders:
Businesses 

Commercial fishing 

Farmers 

General public 

Recreational users, including anglers and boaters 

Contact:

Guy Stefanski

Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study

NC Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

P.O. Box 27687

Raleigh, NC 27611

(919) 715-4084

FAX: (919) 733-1616

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Back Bay of Biloxi Ecosystem 

Assessment
Size and location: The Back Bay of Biloxi, covering 8 square kilometers, borders Harrison, Stone, and 

Jackson Counties, Mississippi. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA Region IV provided funding of $250,000 to document water quality 

and determine effects of pollution sources on ecosystem health. The Gulf of Mexico Program contributed 

$75,000 for chemistry analyses. EPA's Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Lab and EMAP-Louisianian 

Province contributed equipment and time to aid in characterization of the bay. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Jackson, MS 

Gulf Coast Research Lab, University of Southern Mississippi, Ocean Springs, MS 

Major environmental problems:

● Low dissolved oxygen 

● High bacteria and nutrient levels 

● 33 industrial facilities (seafood processors, shipyards, marinas, petroleum facilities, and metal 

processing and chemical industries) 

Actions taken or proposed: The research project ("Ecosystem Health Demonstration Project: Near-Shore 
Gulf of Mexico") is still ongoing and includes not only ecological parameters but also human pathogens. 

The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) design, with more intensive sampling, 

is being used along with selected biomarkers. The research is part of an overall program to develop a set 

of ecological assessment procedures to describe the condition of Gulf Coast estuaries, to identify and 

characterize ecological problems caused by contaminants, and to determine the causes of observed 

problems. 

Stakeholders:

Food and Drug Administration 

Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

U.S. EPA EMAP-Louisianian Province 

U.S. EPA Gulf of Mexico Program 

U.S. EPA Region IV 

Contact:

Michael A. Lewis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory

1 Sabine Island Drive

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299

(904) 934-9382

FAX: (904) 934-2403

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Bayou Chico Ecological Assessment
Size and location: Escambia County, Florida. Bayou Chico is 0.8 square kilometer. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Cooperative agreement with North Texas State University to conduct an 

ecological evaluation and to determine sensitive assessment techniques and risk assessment 

methodology. Intramural research consists of multiyear ecological evaluation. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab - Gulf Breeze, FL 

Major environmental problems: Nutrient enrichment and contaminated sediment caused by urban runoff 

and extensive industrial activities. 

Actions taken or proposed: None to date. 

Stakeholders:

City of Pensacola 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Florida Northwest Water Management District 

U.S. EPA Region IV 

Contact:

Michael A. Lewis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory

1 Sabine Island Drive

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299

(904) 934-9382

FAX: (904) 934-2403

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Bayou Grande Ecological Assessment
Size and location: Escambia County, Florida. Bayou Grande is 4.3 square kilometers. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Multi-year ecological evaluation to determine ecological status, sensitive 

ecological assessment techniques, and risk assessment methodology. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab - Gulf Breeze, FL 

Major environmental problems: Toxic contamination of sediments due to Superfund site on naval base. 

Actions taken or proposed: Ground water monitoring 

Stakeholders:

City of Pensacola 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

U.S. EPA Region IV 

U.S. Navy 

Contact:

Michael A. Lewis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory

1 Sabine Island Drive

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299

(904) 934-9382

FAX: (904) 934-2403

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Bayou Texar Ecological Assessment
Size and location: Escambia County, Florida. Bayou Texar is 1.4 square kilometers. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Multi-year ecological evaluation to determine ecological status; sensitive 

ecological monitoring techniques and risk assessment methodology. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab - Gulf Breeze, FL 

Major environmental problems: Urban runoff, urban development, and Superfund site contribute to 

excessive sedimentation, nutri- ent enrichment, and sediment contamination. 

Actions taken or proposed: Dredging 

Stakeholders:

City of Pensacola 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

U.S. EPA Region IV 

Contact:

Michael A. Lewis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory

1 Sabine Island Drive

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299

(904) 934-9382

FAX: (904) 934-2403

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Cahaba River Basin Project

Size and location: The Cahaba River is approximately 306 kilometers (190 miles) long from its 

headwaters in St. Clair County, Alabama, to its confluence with the Alabama River in Dallas County. It 
drains an area of approximately 4725 kilometers (1825 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA will provide assistance to the Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM) in developing a basin management plan for activities that will address the aquatic 

resource problems and protect human health. 

Organization that Initiated Project:

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems: Problems identified include low dissolved oxygen levels below point 

source discharges, increased chemical concentrations (ammonia, nutrients, and chlorine) due to low 

streamflow, eutrophication and resulting algal blooms, habitat degradation due to sediments and 

eutrophication, high bacteria levels inhibiting recreational activities, toxics such as metals, insecticides, 

and herbicides, fisheries health and diversity problems, and water quality problems due to 

hydromodification. 

Actions proposed: The basin management plan will involve (1) the identification of basin 

problems/critical issues and available data; (2) the appropriate sampling, analysis, and planning to 

identify and prioritize the problems/ critical issues; (3) the identification of management strategies for 

addressing the basin problems and the integrated solutions; (4) the implementation of the management 

plan and the solutions identified; and (5) the follow-up monitoring program to determine the 

effectiveness of the implementation plan. 

Stakeholders: Full stakeholder involvement is anticipated throughout the process. Stakeholders include 

EPA, ADEM, Jefferson County, Shelby County, St. Clair County Dallas County, Perry County, Bibb 

County, Cahaba River Society, U.S. Fish and Wildlife of Alabama, Jefferson County Health Department, 

Sierra Club, Alabama Conservancy, Birmingham Audubon, Alabama Attorney General's Office, 

Geological Survey of Alabama, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, affected 

municipalities/industries. 

Contacts:

Mary Kay Lynch

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3555, ext. 6607

John Kroske

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3555, ext. 6595

Grace Deatrick

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3555, ext. 6558

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Carteret County Wetlands Advance 

Identification (ADID) Project
Site Size and Location: Area encompassed is entirety of Carteret County, on the North Carolina coast. 

Nature of EPA involvement: ADID's are EPA-led initiatives in cooperation with state and/or local 

government or agency. EPA acts to assist the state or local sponsor in gathering scientific data on 

wetlands in a defined geographic area, and coordinates the project activities of the various agencies 

involved. EPA also produces the Technical Summary Document describing the project findings and 

regulatory implications. The data are used by federal government agencies as regulatory guidance under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and by the state/local sponsor as they see fit for their own programs 

as long as they are consistent with federal policy. In this project the NC Division of Coastal Management 

plans to use results to facilitate development of a state Wetland Conservation Plan, and County can 

incorporate information into future Land Use Plans. 

Organization that initiated project: NC Division of Coastal Management requested that EPA initiate an 

ADID with their cooperation in Carteret County. 

Major environmental problems: Historic wetland loss through agricultural conversion and residential 

and urban development. Ongoing loss of pocosins, a unique local wetland type. Need for protection of 

fish and shellfish habitat. 

Actions taken or proposed: Project is in final stages. All field data have been gathered and analysis is 

nearing completion. Carteret County and segments of regulated community are utilizing selected draft 
designation maps for development planning. 

Stakeholders:

EPA 

Corps 

North Carolina Division of Coastal Management 

Carteret County 

Various other federal and state agencies also interested in results. 

Contact:

Rosalind Moore

U.S. EPA, Region IV

Wetlands Planning Unit

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871, ext. 6511

FAX: (404) 347-1798

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Central Dougherty Plain Wetlands 

Advance Identification (ADID) Project
Size and location: 161,600 hectares (400,000 acres) around Albany, Georgia (Baker, Calhoun, 

Dougherty, Lee and Terrell Counties). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is coordinating this multiagency planning effort and providing major 

funding through a cooperative agreement with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. EPA also 

provided funds to the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for assistance on 

this project. 

Organization that initiated project: EPA initiated this project in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers in response to concerns over unpermitted filling activities in the area, which contains 

extensive bottomland hardwoods and limesink wetlands. 

Major environmental problems: Urban growth, silvicultural conversion, and agricultural activities 

threaten bottomland hardwood and limesink wetlands in the Albany area. Water quality and quantity are 

prime concerns due to the karst terrain with complex surface and ground water interconnections. The 

area lies distant from any regulatory agency offices, and unpermitted filling of wetlands has occurred. 

Actions taken or proposed: A multiagency project team, including representatives from federal and state 

government, as well as technical advisors from local government and academia, is developing a 

geographic information system (GIS) database with information on project area wetland types, soils, 

geologic characteristics, landscape positions, and functional assessment field scores. Limited field testing 
is being conducted to fill data gaps in wildlife usage of the area. Maps and a technical document will be 

produced designating the suitability of project area wetlands for filling based on the functions provided 

by the wetlands. These products will be available to government agencies and the general public for use 

in preliminary planning for project area wetlands. Citizens are being educated about local wetlands 

through public meetings, informational mailings, television appearances by project team members, and 

development and distribution of a wetlands brochure. 

Stakeholders:

Government agencies that regulate natural resources, landowners, land developers, environmental 

groups, environmental consultants, real estate agents, farmers, foresters and hunters. 

Contact:

Veronica Fasselt

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871 ext. 6509

FAX: (404) 347-1798

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Charleston Harbor Project
Size and location: Charleston Harbor is located near and around Charleston, South Carolina. The project 

areas consist of Charleston estuary and the Ashley, Wando, and Cooper Rivers encompassing 808,000 

hectares (2 million acres) of land area. 

EPA involvement: The Charleston Harbor Project is based on EPA's National Estuary Program 

guidance. EPA Region IV has provided both technical and management assistance along with monitoring 

support. 

Organization that initiated project: The Charleston Harbor Project evolved from a grass-roots effort of 

the concerned citizens in the Charleston area. Their efforts resulted in 1991 funding approval for a 

special area management plan implemented through the South Carolina Coastal Council and initial 

funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Major environmental problems: Charleston Harbor is an important commercial port and is also a very 

rich estuary with over 20,000 hectares (50,000 acres) of coastal marshes. The rapid urbanization and 

consequent nutrient enrichment of the estuary are the most probable causes of future degradation. Also, 

Charleston Harbor has many water-based industrial and commercial activities that could lead to localized 

contaminated toxic "hot spots." 

Actions taken or proposed: Four major tasks are being undertaken to identify pollution causes and 

subsequent management strategies: (1) Water Quality Modeling and Nutrient Dynamics Project, (2) 

Water Quality Management and Best Management Practices Project, (3) Biological Habitat Project and, 

(4) Land Planning and Cultural Resource Projects. 

Stakeholders:

Charleston local government 

Industry representatives and water users 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Conservation 

South Carolina Coastal Council 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. EPA 
U.S. Geological Survey 

Contact:

J. Heyward Robinson

Project Director

Charleston Harbor Project

4130 Faber Place, Suite 302

Charleston, SC 29405

(803) 747-4323

FAX: (803) 744-5847

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Escambia River Watershed Project
Size and location: Escambia County, Florida. Escambia Bay is 93 square kilometers. It also has the fifth 

largest watershed in Florida. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Multiyear investigations to assess rare and endangered mussels, determine 

ecological status, develop sensitive ecological techniques, and develop risk assessment methodology for 

watersheds. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab - Gulf Breeze, FL 

Major environmental problems: Many industrial discharges and considerable agricultural runoff have 

reduced quality of water and sediment. 

Actions taken or proposed: None to date. 

Stakeholders:

U.S. EPA Region IV 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Florida Northwest Water Management District 

Contact:

Michael A. Lewis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory

1 Sabine Island Drive

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299

(904) 934-9382

FAX: (904) 934-2403

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Flint Creek
Size and location: Flint Creek has a 117,000-hectare (290,000-acre) watershed that is located in northcentral Alabama and drains to Wheeler Reservoir in the Tennessee River. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has participated in the project by providing approximately $1.5 

million in section 319 funds, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, during 

FY92-95. EPA has also provided technical support with a part-time project coordinator and staff 

participation on the four project committees. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management* 

Tennessee Valley Authority* 

U.S. Department of Agriculture* 

*key players in formation of the project 

Major environmental problems:

● Runoff from agricultural lands 

● Point source pollutants 

● Runoff from urban areas 

● Bank-side and in-stream debris and litter 

Actions taken or proposed: The Flint Creek Watershed Project was initiated in 1992 with an 

organizational meeting with stakeholders. Project objectives were determined and resource commitments 

were obtained at this meeting. Several subsequent meetings of the major stake-holders and subcommittee 

members have resulted in the following actions: 

● Hired a Project Leader. 

● Developed watershed maps and an inventory of land uses in the watershed. 

● Compiled existing water quality data and collected additional water quality data. 

● Conducted two fish health studies and several biological assessments. 

● Initiated an Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service Water Quality Initiative Project in 

Crowdabout Creek. 

● Developed a volunteer monitoring program. 

● Initiated work on development of a total maximum daily load model. 
● Developed three outdoor laboratories. 

● Formed a watershed Conservancy District and elected 11 directors from the 3-county area. 

● Developed a geographic information system for the watershed. 

● Approved grants for best management practices to control waste on dairy and swine farms. 

● Assisted area farmers with animal waste lagoon pumpout. 

● Developed a Self-Enviro-assist program. 

● Implemented a sociological survey to assess community attitudes and measure attitude changes 

over time. 

● Developed several educational activities and environmental literature for school and community 

distribution. 

Stakeholders:

Alabama A & M Cooperative Extension Service 

Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

Alabama Department of Public Health 

Alabama Forestry Commission 

Alabama Geological Survey 

Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee 

Auburn University Cooperative Extension Service 

Cullman County Soil & Water Conservation District 

Lawrence County Soil & Water Conservation District 

Morgan County Litter Control Office 

Morgan County Soil & Water Conservation District 

Soil Conservation Service 

Tennessee Valley Authority 
Tennessee Valley Resource Conservation & Development 

U.S. Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Contact:

Charles Sweatt

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(205) 386-2614 

FAX: (205) 386-3331

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Florida Bay Algal Bloom Monitoring 

Project
Size and location: Florida Bay is a lagoonal estuary bordered on the north by the Florida mainland and 

on the southeast by the Florida Keys. It is approximately 2200 square kilometers. The bay is shallow, 

with an average depth of 1 meter. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Provide image processing support to determine the ability of NALC 

triplicates to identify algal blooms in the Florida Bay and to discover the earliest possible date of their 

occurrence. The EPA has funded $75,000 and five people are involved. 

Organization that initiated project:

EPA Gulf Coast Program Office 

Major environmental problems: Algal blooms causing a deterioration in water quality in Florida Bay 

with major impacts on fisheries-related industries and recreation. 

Actions taken or proposed: Phase I of image processing support involved the analysis of an NALC 

triplicate of the Florida Bay area to determine whether algal blooms could be detected from the images. 

Initial results (without the benefit of ground truthing) indicated anomalous high near infrared (IR) 

reflectance, which might indicate the presence of algal blooms. A proposed Phase II would incorporate 

ground truth data with results obtained from the Phase I effort. 
Stakeholders:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Gordon E. Howard

U.S. EPA - Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center

Vint Hill Farms Station

Warrenton, VA 

(703) 341-7506

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Florida Everglades Mercury Ecological 

Risk Assessment
Size and location: Receptor region is 10,000 square kilometers (about 60 km x 160 km south of Lake 

Okeechobee to Florida Bay and the Keys). The actual study area for atmospheric mercury fluxes would 

be larger (regional and global). 

Nature of EPA involvement: Development and initiation of a multidisciplinary, multimedia interagency 

study to address the extensive contamination of Everglades biota with mercury of unknown origin. 

Comprehensive eco-risk assessment of mercury contamination in water, sediment, and biota (especially 

fish). Three major candidate stressor areas are agricultural, industrial, and hydroperiod (hydrologic and 

hydraulic changes). 

Organizations initiating project:

U.S. EPA (Region IV and the Office of Research and Development) 

U.S. Department of the Interior (National Biological Survey, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife 

Service) 

Florida International University 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
South Florida Water Management District 

Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission 

For the atmospheric component, EPA's Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory 

(AREAL, Region IV), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Environment Canada, Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection, Florida State University, the University of Michigan, and other 

representatives from industry. 

Major environmental problems: Elevated mercury levels in top carnivores, fish, water, and sediments. 

Actions taken or proposed: Development and application of ultra-trace level analytical methods for 

mercury; implementation of a multimedia biogeochemical cycling study for mercury in the Everglades 

ecosystem; understanding of the relative contributions of mercury sources (atmospheric emissions from 

South Florida urban areas, drainage water from agricultural lands, natural Everglades peat mercury pool, 

etc.) to the Everglades ecosystem and the environmental conditions that result in the bioaccumulation of 

methylmercury; understanding potential interrelationships between Everglades phosphorus and mercury 

bioaccumulation; ecological risk assessment model for the Everglades ecosystem; understanding of the 

appropriateness and effectiveness of potential remediation or regulatory strategies. 

EPA's Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) has provided valuable 

exposure information. Biogeochemical modeling and connections to atmospheric and water models and 

monitoring data is needed. The latest atmospheric initiative should address three basic questions: 

● What are the sources of mercury to the atmosphere in South Florida (anthropogenic, natural 

background, and local)? 

● What are the spatial and temporal distributions of mercury deposition in South Florida (speciation 

of deposited mercury; phase separation/distribution of deposited mercury)? 

● What are the mechanisms of transformation and source-receptor relationships that help to explain 

the deposition gradient (fate fluxes, and removal mechanisms, such as washout, evasion, 

impaction, transformation leading to enhanced removal, explore source-receptor, regional 

transport modeling)? 

Contacts:

Larry Burns

U.S. EPA

Office of Research and Development

Athens, GA

Dan Scheidt
U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3555 x6552 and

(706) 546-2294

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Size and location: The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary encompasses approximately 2800 

square nautical miles of nearshore waters extending from just south of Miami to the Dry Tortugas, a 

small island west of Key West in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990 

directed EPA and the State of Florida to develop a water quality protection program for the sanctuary. 

Organizations that initiated project: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Major environmental problems:

● Degraded water quality 

● Septic leachate from on-site disposal systems 

● Discharges from sewage treatment/package plants and live-aboard vessels 

● Storm water runoff 

● Seagrass die-off, sponge die-off, algal blooms 

Actions taken or proposed: EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection have recently 

completed the development of a Water Quality Protection Program for the sanctuary. The purpose of the 

program is to recommend priority corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing point and 

nonpoint sources of pollution to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of 

the sanctuary. A comprehensive water quality monitoring and research program was also developed and 

will be implemented in fiscal year 1995. 

Stakeholders:

Local citizens 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Recreational users including anglers, boaters, and divers/snorkelers 

Seafood processors 

State of Florida 

Tourist industry 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Fred McManus

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, Georgia 30365

(404) 347-1740, ext. 4299

FAX: (404) 347-1797

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Florida Keys Wetlands Advance 

Identification (ADID) Project
Size and location: 26,260 hectares (65,000 acres); study area is the Keys archipelago from North Key 

Largo to Key West. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Awarded grants to the local sponsor (Monroe County) and to the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection to assist in their participation; funded Interagency Agreements 

(IAGs) with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

for their participation; EPA project officer spends one-third full time serving as coordinator. 

Organizations that initiated project:

EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Major environmental problems: Cumulative effects of numerous small-scale wetland fills, wetland 

habitat loss of endangered species 

Actions taken or proposed: A geographic information system (GIS) is in place; digital land cover has 

been acquired; a functional assessment model has been developed; and wetland delineation, 

classification, and assessment are under way. Project goals are to incorporate ADID findings into the 

county land use plan; to write a general permit for areas that are suitable for fill; and to coordinate future 

wetland mitigation banks among federal, state, and local officials. The results of this ADID should be 

incorporated into federal, state, and local regulatory efforts, as well as local planning processes and 
PE&O. 

Stakeholders:

County/State residents; local developers, property owners, political leaders, and environmental activists; 

citizens at all levels of government; federal and county regulators; state and county planners 

Contact:

Dr. Peter Kalla 

U.S. EPA, Region IV

WMD-WOWB-WPS-WPU

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871 ext. 6508

FAX: (404) 347-1798

E-mail: kalla.peter@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Huntsville Wetlands Advance 

Identification (ADID) Project
Size and Location: Project area covers 2424 hectares (6000 wetland acres) around Huntsville, Alabama. 

Nature of EPA involvement: ADIDs are EPA-led initiatives in cooperation with a state and/or local 

government or agency. EPA acts to assist the state or local sponsor in gathering scientific data on 

wetlands in a defined geographic area and coordinates the project activities of the various agencies 

involved. EPA also produces the Technical Summary Document describing the project findings and 

regulatory implications. The data are used by federal government agencies as regulatory guidance under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and by the state/local sponsor as it sees fit for its own programs as 

long as its uses are consistent with federal policy. In this project the City of Huntsville may use the 

findings to enact a future wetland ordinance. 

Organization that initiated project: The City of Huntsville requested that EPA initiate an ADID with its 

cooperation in the Huntsville area. 

Major environmental problems: Wetland loss through unpermitted filling and wetland degradation from 

agricultural practices causing erosion and sedimentation are the greatest threats in this area. 

Actions taken or proposed: Project is near completion. All data have been gathered and wetlands 

designated regarding suitability for filling. Approximately 98 percent of wetlands designated unsuitable 

for development in draft Technical Summary Document. Corps of Engineers considering exertion of 

discretionary authority over NW 26 permitting in ADID area. 

Stakeholders:

Primarily: 

● EPA 

● Corps of Engineers 

● City of Huntsville 

Also: 

● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

● Madison County 

● Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

Contact:

Rosalind Moore 

U.S. EPA Region IV

Wetlands Planning Unit
345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871, ext. 6511

FAX: (404) 347-1798

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Indian River Lagoon
Size and location: The Indian River Lagoon (IRL) comprises more than a third of Florida s east coast 

and extends 250 kilometers (155 miles) from Ponce de Leon Inlet in the north to Jupiter Inlet in the 

south. The IRL basin spans about 5900 square kilometers (2280 square miles) and includes three major 

watersheds. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding, and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees in the 

program. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Marine Resources Council of East Central Florida 

State of Florida 

St. Johns River Water Management District 

Major environmental problems:

● Isolation of coastal wetlands due to mosquito impoundments 

● Storm water runoff 

● Undesirable freshwater discharges 

● Increased suspended matter loadings and sedimentation 

● Increased nutrient loadings 

● Population increase resulting in undesirable watershed alterations 

● Loss of seagrass beds 

● Loss of emergent wetlands 

● Lack of consistency in environmental protection rules and criteria 

Actions taken or proposed: The IRL was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary Program (NEP) 

by EPA in 1990. IRL NEP activities have focused on the development of a Comprehensive Conservation 

and Management Plan (CCMP) to identify and promote the restoration of water quality and resources in 

the area. Emphasis has been placed on assessing nonpoint sources of runoff, determining environmental 

requirements needed for submerged aquatic vegetation, reconnecting and acquiring mosquito 

impoundments, and promotion of IRL stewardship. As part of the development of the CCMP, several 

demonstration projects are being undertaken to show the viability of final recommendations for 

restoration of the estuary. These demonstrations include habitat restoration, storm water management, 

and innovative ecosystem management practices. 

Stakeholders:

Businesses 
Commercial fishing 

Local citizens 

Recreational users including diver/snorkelers, boaters, and anglers 

Contact:

Drew Kendall

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3555, ext. 2060

FAX: (404) 347-1797

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Land-of-Sky Municipal Solid Waste 

Initiative
Size and location: The Land-of-Sky Regional Council has jurisdiction over solid waste activities in a 

four-county area (Buncombe, Transylvania, Henderson, and Madison Counties) with a population of 

286,579. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Land-of-Sky Regional Council and EPA are Partners in a Cooperative 

Agreement. 

Organization that initiated project:

Land-of-Sky Regional Council, Asheville, North Carolina 

Major environmental problems: The Land-of-Sky Regional Council four-county area generates about 1 

million tons of municipal solid waste per year. 

Action taken or proposed: The goal of the project is to reduce the amount of waste the four-county area 

will landfill. The project will focus on retention of existing businesses and attraction of new businesses to 

utilize the Region's recycled materials. The project will also focus on the number of jobs retained or 

created in each county. Diversion of the materials from the landfill will also extend landfill life allowing 

resources to be devoted to other priority projects. 

Stakeholders:
Stakeholders are Buncombe, Transylvania, Henderson, and Madison Counties 

EPA 

Contact:

Deborah Gallman, (5306W)

U.S. EPA

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-4683

FAX: (202) 260-4196

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

Wetland Conservation Plan
Size and location: 1120-kilometer (700-mile) stretch from Cairo, Illinois, south to the Gulf of Mexico; 

historical alluvial plain of the Mississippi River. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Currently, providing funding assistance to multiple state agencies within 

the Lower Mississippi Valley, as well as federal interagency projects addressing forestry and resource 

planning issues. EPA and several regional sponsors will be coordinating the development of a regional 

wetlands conservation plan. 

Organization that initiated project: Multiple federal agencies, including EPA, U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), National Biological Survey (NBS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are initiating ecosystem-scale planning and research efforts in the 

region. 

Major environmental problems:

● Nonpoint source pollution in surface waters 

● Extensive forested wetlands loss 

● Impacted fisheries and wildlife habitats 

● Extensive hydrological modifications 

Actions taken or proposed: This multistate, multiregion initiative focuses on wetland 
restoration/reforestation and reduction of nonpoint source water pollution throughout the Lower 

Mississippi River Alluvial Plain. A regional sponsor will coordinate state and federal efforts by 

developing and implementing a regional wetlands conservation plan. Establishing networks among 

interest groups and data sharing through the use of a geographic information system will be emphasized, 

as well as prioritization of wetland restoration/acquisition sites. 

Stakeholders:

Natural resource state agencies from MS, LA, TN, AR, KY, MO, and IL 

agricultural community 

forestry community 

landowners 

hunting and outdoor recreation groups 

environmental organizations 

sustainable economy organizations 

federal natural resource and public health agencies, including EPA, National Biological Survey, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Geological Service, U.S. Forest 

Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 

Contacts:

Jennifer Derby/Eric Hughes

EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871 ext. 6510 and ext. 6517

Beverly Ethridge/Jay Gamble/Jack Hill

EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-2263

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Loxahatchee River Basin Wetland 

Planning Project
Size and Location: Project area covers approximately 11,300 hectares (28,000 acres) in Martin and Palm 

Beach Counties, Florida. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Project is an EPA-led initiative in cooperation with a county government 

and a regional planning council. EPA will assist the local sponsors in gathering scientific data on 

wetlands in the project area and will coordinate the project activities of the various agencies involved. 

The data are expected to be used by federal agencies as regulatory guidance under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act, and by the local sponsors for activities such as creating zoning ordinances and 

mitigation site selection. This project is very similar to an Advance Identification (ADID) project except 

that designations of suitability for fill will not be made per se but will likely be replaced with 

designations of qualitative ecological value. 

Organization that initiated project: Local environmental group made initial request, with subsequent 

support from local governments and other natural resource entities. 

Major environmental problems: Concern over water quality and quantity in Loxahatchee River basin, 

intensified by the fact that the river has been designated as a National Wild and Scenic River and is the 

only one so designated in the state. Increasing encroachment by development into remaining wetlands is 

a primary concern. 

Actions taken or proposed: Project is in initial stage. Core participants have been identified and goals 
set. Data gathering not yet under way. Next major task is formulation of wetland functional assessment 

method to analyze wetlands in the field. 

Stakeholders:

EPA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Martin and Palm Beach Counties 

South Florida Water Management District 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 

Contact:

Rosalind Moore

U.S. EPA, Region IV

Wetlands Planning Unit

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871, ext. 6511

FAX: (404) 347-1798

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Mobile Bay Restoration Demonstrations
Size and location: The Mobile Bay estuarine drainage area covers 102,900 kilometers (39,725 square 

miles) in nine South Alabama counties. The surface area of the bay is about 1300 square kilometers (500 

square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: Funding assistance for all Gulf of Mexico Program activities associated 

with this initiative, providing technical input via steering committees, meetings, and workshops, and 

promotions of the Mobile Bay Restoration Demonstrations to other federal and state agencies. 

Organizations that initiated project: Gulf of Mexico Program in conjunction with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA), Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, National Marine Fisheries Society, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV. 

Major environmental problems:

● Rapid growth in population 

● Heavy shipping 

● Damaged wetlands 

● Loss of submerged seagrass beds 

● Reduced water quality 

● Closing of numerous oyster reefs 

Actions taken or proposed: The Gulf of Mexico Program coordinated state and federal restoration 

demonstrations in Mobile Bay to provide an ecosystems approach to watershed environmental 

management. The program was instrumental in initiating the following projects within the Mobile 

watershed ecosystems: 

● Implementation of activities in conjunction with USFWS and ADEM that demonstrate how water 

quality can be improved by restoring salt marsh and seagrass habitats, which act as water filters 

for nearby oyster reefs. 

● Implementation of a program with the Alabama Department of Public Health and the Mobile 

County Health Department to monitor and control nonpoint sources of pollution affecting water 

quality for coastal waters. One project involves constructing a wetland to filter fertilizer and 

pesticide-laden runoff from a golf course. 

● Development and implementation of a citizen monitoring support program Bay Watch to use 

citizen volunteers to gather information to target and followup on pollution control activities in 

the Mobile Bay watershed, in cooperation with ADEM. 

● Coordinated development of a menu driven Geographic Information System to improve decisions 

made during section 404 wetland permit review for the Mobile Bay area. 

Stakeholders:
ADECA 

ADEM 

Agriculture 

Citizens using the bay for food and recreation 

Development 

Fisheries 

Local and state governments in Alabama 

Manufacturing and mining 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Tourism 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

Contact:

Douglas A. Lipka, Ph.D.

EPA/Gulf of Mexico Program

Building 1103, Room 202\

Stennis Space Center, MS 30529

(601) 688-3726 

FAX: (610) 688-2709
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Pearl River Wetlands Advance 

Identification (ADID) Project
Size and location: Size of area is 340 square kilometers/130 square miles (33,500 hectares/ 83,000 acres) 

total; 23,400 hectares (58,000 acres) of wetlands near Jackson, Mississippi. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has been the initiating force in this project. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, the state, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have provided technical assistance. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problem: Bottomland hardwood wetlands are at risk from urban expan- sion from 

the Jackson metro area. 

Actions taken or proposed: Area has been remotely assessed and land use/land cover maps generated. 

Area has also been hydrogeo- morphically classified and assessed. 

Stakeholders:

EPA 

Corps of Engineers 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

state agencies 

regulated public 

Contact:

Bill Ainslie

EPA Region IV

Wetlands Planning Unit

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365 

(404) 347-3555 ext. 6589

FAX: (404) 347-3269

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Pensacola Bay Watershed Evaluation
Size and location: Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida. Pensacola Bay is 133 square kilometers 

in area. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Multiyear watershed evaluation to determine ecological status, sensitive 

ecological monitoring techniques, and risk assessment methodology. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab - Gulf Breeze, FL 

Major environmental problems: Point source discharges, urban runoff, and agricultural runoff have 

impacted the bay. 

Actions taken or proposed: None to date. 

Stakeholders:

Cities of Pensacola and Gulf Breeze, Florida 

Florida Northwest Water Management District 

State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

U.S. EPA Region IV 

Contact:

Michael A. Lewis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory

1 Sabine Island Drive

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299

(904) 934-9382

FAX: (904) 934-2403

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Rookery Bay Wetlands Advance 

Identification (ADID) Project 
Size and location: 43,600 hectares (108,000 acres) in Collier County, Florida. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is coordinating this multiagency planning effort and providing major 

funding through cooperative agreements with state and local agencies and a local nonprofit organization. 

Organization that initiated project: EPA initiated this project in cooperation with the Corps at the 

request of the state and a variety of environmental organizations. 

Major environmental problems: Rapid urban growth in the Rookery Bay watershed is threatening the 

water quality in Rookery Bay and degrading the habitat for threatened and endangered species, such as 

the Florida panther and red-cockaded woodpecker. The misconception that melaleuca-infested wetlands 

and hydric pine flatwoods have no functional value is widespread in the area. 

Actions taken or proposed: A multi-agency project team, including representatives from federal, state, 

and local government and a non-profit environmental group is developing a geographic information 

system (GIS) data base with information on project area wetland types, soils, sub-basin boundaries, and 

impact areas for major drainage canals. Limited field testing is being conducted to fill data gaps in 

wildlife usage of the area, document hydrology in hydric pine flatwoods, and assess impacts of drainage 

canals on wetland hydrology. Maps and a technical document will be produced designating the suitability 

of project area wetlands for filling based on the functions provided by the wetlands. These products will 

be available to government agencies and the general public for use in preliminary planning for project 

area wetlands. Citizens are being educated about local wetlands through public meetings, informational 

mailings, and development and distribution of a Rookery Bay Watershed poster. 

Stakeholders:

Government agencies that regulate natural resources, landowners, land developers, environmental 

groups, environmental consultants, real estate agents, citrus/vegetable growers, and recreational and 

commercial fish/shellfish industries. 

Contact:

Veronica Fasselt

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871 ext. 6509

FAX: (404) 347-1798

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Sarasota Bay
Size and location: This project encompasses Sarasota Bay, Roberts Bay, Little Sarasota Bay, Dryman 

Bay, and Blackburn Bay and consists of a coastal watershed of approximately 389 square kilometers 

(150 square miles) of land area and 135 square kilometers (52 square miles) of water surface extending 

from Anna Maria Key south to Casey Key on the southwest coast of Florida. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees in the 

program. 

Organizations that initiated project: This is a cooperative project stimulated by local governments and 

communities and Mote Marine Laboratory. Sarasota Bay was selected for inclusion in the National 

Estuary Program (NEP) by EPA in 1988. The Sarasota Bay NEP is sponsored by the Southwest Florida 

Water Management District, Manatee County, Sarasota County, the City of Sarasota, and EPA. 

Major environmental problems:

● Excessive nitrogen loads due to inadequate wastewater treatment 

● Storm water runoff 

● Loss of natural habitat (freshwater and saltwater wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation) 

Actions taken or proposed: The NEP provides funds to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and 

Management Plan (CCMP) for Sarasota Bay that will recommend priority corrective actions to restore 

and maintain the estuarine resources. During the CCMP development, several demonstration projects are 

being undertaken to illustrate how the final recommendations for bay restoration will be implemented. 

These demonstrations include 11 habitat-related projects and 2 storm water management projects. The 

intertidal habitat restoration projects will restore 32 hectares (80 acres) of habitat lost since 1950. 

Implementation of the storm water projects will reduce the quantity an improve the quality of storm 

water discharge in specific basins, as well as providing valuable information about storm water 

management techniques in highly urbanized coastal areas. Local governments have made significant 

strides toward restoring and protecting the bay primarily by integrating the strategy of the Sarasota Bay 

NEP into community decisions that might affect the bay. Public education/outreach and citizen 

involvement have been critical in allowing the Sarasota Bay NEP to progress to this point and will be 

essential in full implementation of the CCMP recommendations. 

Action Plans have been drafted for inclusion in the CCMP. These plans address wastewater/nitrogen 

loading reduction, storm water management, freshwater and saltwater wetlands restoration and 

protection, fisheries and other living resources, sustainable recreational use, and bay management 

(governance). The final CCMP will be completed in June 1995 and will propose not only the action plans 

needed to restore Sarasota Bay, but also who should take the lead for implementation activities, how 

much these activities will cost, how these activities will be funded, and a timeline for determining 

success of implementation. 
Stakeholders:

Businesses 

Local citizens 

Property owners 

Recreational users including divers, snorkelers, boaters, and anglers 

Scientists 

Tourists 

Contact:

Hudson Slay

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3555 ext. 2059

FAX: (404) 347-1797

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Savannah River Basin
Size and location: The Savannah River basin is a 25,900-square-kilometer/10,000-square-mile watershed 

located in the southeastern United States and includes portions of North Carolina, South Carolina, and 

Georgia. The Savannah River, which is the boundary between South Carolina and Georgia, is formed at 

Hartwell Reservoir by the confluence of the Seneca and Tugaloo Rivers and flows southeast to the 

Atlantic Ocean at the port city of Savannah, Georgia. Above the junction of the Seneca and Tugaloo 

Rivers, the major headwater streams of the Seneca River are the Keowee River and Twelve Mile Creek. 

The Tugaloo River is formed by the union of the Tallulah and Chattooga Rivers. These headwater 

streams originate on the southern slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina and Georgia. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is providing leadership and coordination support for this project. EPA 

has also provided financial support for watershed demonstration projects and has also provided staff 

support for projects such as water quality field sampling and modeling. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems:

● Impaired fisheries due to poor water quality 

● Low dissolved oxygen (DO) in Savannah River and Estuary 

● Savannah River Site (listed as a Superfund site in 1989) discharges and releases 

● Negative water quality impacts on public drinking water supplies 

● Nonpoint source impacts from forestry, agriculture, and urban land use 

● Salinity in estuary impacts on public/private drinking water supplies, fisheries, wetlands 

● Sedimentation in the estuary causing navigation problems and increased dredging 

● Modification and physical changes in the estuary 

● Point source discharge effects 

● Dam release impacts e.g., fish kills, cold water releases, low DO releases 

● Development impacts e.g., development near urban areas, river access projects, wetland losses, 

possible future harbor development 

● Habitat alteration/destruction e.g., dredging, salinity impacts, sedimentation, hydropower releases, 

development 

● Commercial shipping impacts on harbor water quality 

● Water quality impact of drought management plans e.g., low-flow scenarios 

● Urban storm water runoff 

● Ground water quantity limitations due to saltwater intrusion and drawdown and the potential 

interaction with surface water 

Actions taken or proposed: EPA began working in 1992 with the water quality agencies of Georgia and 

South Carolina to reach consensus on the nature and scope of this project. A multiagency/organization 

meeting with stakeholders in the basin to plan and organize a comprehensive and integrated watershed 

project followed. Actions are under way to develop a Watershed Assessment Report that includes input 
on priority actions from all basin stakeholders. An organizational structure has been developed to 

manage the project and includes equal representation from major stakeholders. Additionally, resourcebased subcommittees will provide the technical support for this project. There is a great deal of interest in 

coordinated management of the natural resources of the Savannah River basin, and the many 

stakeholders in the basin are committed to participation in project management, planning, and 

implementation. The Watershed Assessment Report will be a guide for implementation of priority 

actions by basin stake-holders. 

Stakeholders:

Augusta Canal Authority 

Augusta Chamber of Commerce 

Central Savannah Regional Development Center 

City of Beaufort, South Carolina 

Duke Power 

Federal Paper Board Corporation 

Fort Howard Company 

Georgia Conservancy 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Georgia Environmental Protection 

Lower Savannah Council of Governments 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Savannah Area Chamber of Commerce 

Savannah River Forum 

Sierra Club 
South Carolina Coastal Council 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium 

Southeastern Power Administration 

Southern Environmental Law Center 

Stone Savannah River Company 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Energy - Savannah River Site 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Union Camp Corporation 

Westinghouse Savannah River Company 

Contact:

Meredith Anderson

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-2126, ext. 6581

FAX: (404) 347-3269

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

South Florida Wetlands Permitting and 

Mitigation Strategy
Size and location: Wetland habitats, which cover a significant portion of the land area, are scattered 

throughout South Florida, a 41,000-square-kilometer (16,000-square-mile) watershed located at the 

southern terminus of the Florida peninsula. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA Region IV and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) are leading 

the effort to develop a Comprehensive South Florida Wetlands Permitting and Mitigation Strategy, as 

recommended by the Federal Interagency Working Group in its 1994 Annual Report. The strategy will 

provide a forum for focusing federal and state activities in South Florida, and it will identify mechanisms 

for improving decision-making processes. It will include the development of a Wetlands Conservation 

Plan by September 1996. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. EPA Region IV 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Major environmental problems:

● Historic wetland losses combined with major hydrologic alterations of the ecosystem 

● Invasion of exotic plant species 

● Rapid population growth and concomitant development subjects the remaining wetlands to 

removal or alteration 

● Loss of native species of flora and fauna 

● Land use designations that conflict with the long-term viability of the wetland habitats 

● Individual permits issued on a case-by-case basis without a complete assessment of the 

cumulative impacts 

Actions taken or proposed:

● Several meetings between federal and state agencies and the South Florida Water Management 

District have been held to develop the scope of the project and to coordinate the numerous related 

activities occurring in South Florida. 

● The draft "Scope of Work" identifies eight tasks to be developed: (1) the formation of a Steering 

Committee; (2) geographic information system (GIS) networking to develop the GIS coordination 

required to complete the tasks and to share data among the agencies GIS data; (3) the 

development and use of land cover classification and other map products; (4) development of a 

functional assessment methodology for assessing the wetlands and other habitats of South Florida; 

(5) identification of important natural areas, including wetlands, buffer areas, transitional zones 

and uplands, critical to the continued functioning of adjacent wetlands; (6) identification of areas 

where intense development pressures require further detailed assessments to be performed as 

quickly as possible; (7) the identification of areas that provide opportunity for preservation, 
restoration, and enhancement; and (8) development of an implementation plan that will identify 

the specific activities, actions, responsible agencies, and timelines for implementing the strategy. 

● A Steering Committee will be formed in February 1995 to prepare the strategy and identify 

cooperative efforts to be completed by each member agency. This group will be composed of 

tribal, federal, state, Water Management District, and local agencies. This group will define the 

scope of the initial product due by September 1996; provide for updates, maintenance, and 

expansion of the project; and provide advice and guidance on accomplishing other Working 

Group recommendations. 

Stakeholders:

Florida Department of Community Affairs 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission 

Local governments 

National and local environmental groups 

Native American tribes 

South Florida agricultural, urban, and other interests 

South Florida Water Management District 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

U.S. Department of Interior 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Rhonda Evans

U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871 ext. 6514

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Tampa Bay
Size and location: The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) study area encompasses both the 

1031-square-kilometer (398-square-mile) bay and its 5960-square-kilometer (2300-square-mile) 

watershed. The watershed extends north of the bay to the upper reaches of the Hillsborough River, east to 

the headwaters of the Alafia River, and south to Sarasota County. Tampa Bay is the longest bay in the 

state of Florida and the seventh longest in the United States. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees in the 

program. 

Organizations that initiated project:

The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 

Southwest Florida Water Management District 

state and local governments 

citizens began an effort culminating with EPA selecting Tampa Bay for inclusion in the National Estuary 

Program in 1990. 

Major environmental problems:

● Growth and development causing habitat destruction, shoreline hardening, and increased 

anthropogenic impacts 

● Pollutant loadings from both point and nonpoint sources 

● Loss and degradation of primary habitats within and around the bay such as tidal marshes, 

mangroves, seagrasses, nonvegetated bay bottom, and open water (pelagic) communities 

● Alteration of surface and ground water flow patterns 

● Atmospheric deposition (nitrogen) 

Actions taken or proposed: The NEP provides funds to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and 

Management Plan for Tampa Bay that will recommend priority corrective actions to restore and maintain 

the estuarine resources. The Tampa Bay NEP intends to approach bay restoration and measures of 

success by linking water quality standards to the environmental needs of bay habitats and the aquatic 

communities they support. Scientists will monitor representative plant and animal species from each of 

the bay s communities to determine the overall health of that portion of the bay. Assessing the condition 

of these indicator species will provide tangible evidence of progress toward goals. The program is 

currently completing a comprehensive review of conditions in the bay, as well as scientific studies that 

will define the environmental requirements of key species. By moving beyond water quality as the end 

result in bay restoration to standards that measure success based on the health of the bay s living 

resources, scientists hope to encourage more resource-based initiatives in environmental management. 
Stakeholders:

Anglers 

Businesses 

Local citizens 

Recreational users, including anglers, divers, snorkelers, and boaters 

Tourists 

Contact:

Dean Ullock

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3555 ext. 2063

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Tri-State Initiative

Size and location: Covering 600,000 hectares (1.5 million acres) and including 368,000 people, the TriState Initiative is located where the states of Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky meet and includes the 

counties of Boyd and Greenup (Kentucky), Lawrence and Scioto (Ohio), and Wayne and Cabell (West 
Virginia). 

Nature of EPA involvement: To assist in a collective effort to define, remediate, and prevent 

environmental threats in the tri-state area. 

Organization that initiated the project:

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems: This area was selected because of the following high risk/priority 

indicators: pollutants released into the environment; known/suspected environmental problems; local 

meteorological conditions; and the level of public concern expressed to EPA. 

Actions taken or proposed: The Air Quality, Risk Analysis, Pollution Prevention, Geographic 

Information System (GIS), and Public Relations workgroups are currently working on the following 

projects: Industry and Community Discussions, Risk Screening/GIS Mapping, Air Toxics Study, 

Pollution Prevention, and a Surface Water Study. Teams on the inactive status include Groundwater, 

Waste, and Compliance. 

Stakeholders:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

EPA Regions III, IV and V 

Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection 

Kentucky Partners 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission 

Portsmouth Local Air Quality Agency 

West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection 

Contact:

Richard Schleyer

U.S. EPA Region V

Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J0)
(312) 353-5089

FAX: (312) 353-8289

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Weeks Bay Estuarine Research Project
Size and location: Weeks Bay is located in Baldwin County, Alabama, and covers 694 hectares (1718 

acres). 

Nature of EPA involvement: Cooperative research with Gulf Coast Research Laboratory (Mississippi) to 

determine ecological status and establish baseline parameters for a Gulf Coast reference site. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab - Gulf Breeze, FL 

Major environmental problems: Agricultural runoff during periods of high rainfall and wetland 

development are impacting area. 

Actions taken or proposed: Protection of riparian zone to buffer pesticide input. 

Stakeholders:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

State of Alabama 

U.S. EPA Region IV 

Contact:

Michael A. Lewis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory

1 Sabine Island Drive

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561-5299

(904) 934-9382

FAX: (904) 934-2403

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

West Broward County Wetlands Advance 

Identification (ADID) Project
Size and location: Project encompasses 78 square kilometers (30 square miles) in Broward County, 

southeastern Florida. 

Nature of EPA involvement: ADIDs are EPA-led initiatives in cooperation with a state and/or local 

government or agency. EPA acts to assist the state or local sponsor in gathering scientific data on 

wetlands in a defined geographic area and coordinates the project activities of the various agencies 

involved. EPA also produces the Technical Summary Document describing the project findings and 

regulatory implications. This project was one of the first to be undertaken in the Region and initially was 

performed only by EPA and the Corps. Assistance by other federal and local agencies has grown 

significantly in latter half of project period. The data are to be used by federal government agencies as 

regulatory guidance under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S EPA 

Major environmental problems: Continued urban encroachment into the eastern boundary of the 

Everglades and associated concern for quality of public health and wildlife habitat. 

Actions taken or proposed: Project is near completion. All data have been gathered and wetlands 

designated regarding suitability for filling. Approximately half of project area designated as suitable for 

development in draft Technical Summary Document due to drainage, habitat fragmentation, and other 
factors. 

Stakeholders:

Primarily: 

● EPA 

● U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

● Broward County 

● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

● Florida Department of Environmental Management 

● and other agencies 

Contact:

Rosalind Moore

U.S. EPA Region IV

Wetlands Planning Unit

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871, ext. 6511

FAX: (404) 347-1798

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

West Chatham County Wetlands 

Advance Identification (ADID) Project
Size and location: 18,000 hectares (45,000 acres) northwest of Savannah, Georgia. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Awarded grant to the local sponsor, Chatham County - Savannah 

Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC), to assist in its participation; funded Interagency Agreements 

(IAGs) with Fish and Wildlife Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service for their 

participation; EPA project officer spends one-third time serving as coordinator. 

Organization that initiated project: U.S. EPA, at the request of MPC 

Major environmental problems: Exurban expansion of Savannah into flatwoods wetlands 

Actions taken or proposed: Year-long field studies of ground water and wildlife use/habitat have been 

completed; geographic information system (GIS) models for delineation and assessment have been 

constructed; and model coverages and parameters have been derived. Project goals are elucidation of 

flatwoods hydrology, separation of marginally hydric soils into wet and dry phases, remote delineation, 

and functional assessment. This ADID should serve as an example for similar areas in the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain. The results should be incorporated into federal regulatory and local planning processes, as 

well as local PE&O. 

Stakeholders:
City/County residents, local developers, property owners, political leaders, and environmental activists; 

county planners and federal regulators 

Contact:

Dr. Peter Kalla 

U.S. EPA, Region IV

WMD-WOWB-WPS-WPU

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871 ext. 6508

FAX: (404) 347-1798

E-mail: kalla.peter@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

West Kentucky Coalfield Wetlands 

Advance Identification (ADID) Project
Size and location: Hopkins, Muhlenburg, and Ohio Counties, Kentucky. Project covers approximately 

5300 square kilometers/2040 square miles (20,600 hectares/75,720 acres) of wetlands. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA Advanced Identification Project. EPA staff have been intimately 

involved with the design, implementation, and writing of the report. 

Organizations that initiated the project: 

U.S. EPA 

Kentucky Environmental Protection Cabinet 

Major environmental problems: Coal mining and agriculture 

Actions taken or proposed: Area wetlands have been hydrogeomorphically classified and assessed. 

Recommendations for designation of areas as "unsuitable for fill" will depend on a site's overall level of 

function and its status as a "target reference" site for restoration. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural Interests 
Coal Mining Industry 

Kentucky Environmental Protection Cabinet 

U.S. EPA 

Contact:

Bill Ainslie

U.S. EPA Region IV

Wetlands Planning Unit

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3555 ext. 6589 

FAX:(404) 347-3269

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Region V Projects

Example projects submitted by Region V include the 17 projects listed below, plus its large-scale 

initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the multisite projects (see Part III). 

The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale and local-scale projects in this 

Region. 

The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of partners 

involved with EPA, and in their goals. Many are based on river basins, and several are Areas of Concern, 

which involve the U.S./Canada boundary's important or sensitive areas. Many projects are oriented 

toward the environmental effects of urbanization. Urban runoff and sedimentation, solid waste disposal, 

toxics and contaminated sediments, declining wildlife populations, fish consumption advisories, urban 

development pressures, agricultural runoff, pathogens, hypoxia, point source discharges, atmospheric 

deposition, habitat loss, and loss of outdoor recreational uses are reported among the problems these 

projects seek to address. Actions taken include developing partnerships with a variety of local, state, and 

federal agencies, industries, private citizens' groups, and other organizations. Depending upon the 

environmental problems present, these multiorganizational teams might identify and assess important or 

degraded habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources, and 

options for pollution prevention; propose development or revision of water quality standards; develop 

outreach and educational programs; or jointly develop management plans. Many of the local-scale 

projects also will enhance as well as benefit from the large-scale initiatives in the Region, which include 

the Great Lakes Program, the ICEM Upper Midwest Initiative, and the EMAP Lake Superior 

Assessment. 
List of sites

Region V projects in the Inventory at this time include: 

● Ashtabula River Area of Concern, OH

● Big Darby Creek, OH

● Cache River, IL

● Clinton River Area of Concern, MI

● Lake Michigan, IL, IN, MI, WI

● Lake Superior EMAP - Great Lakes Assessment, MI, MN, WI

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO*

● Maumee River Area of Concern, OH

● Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern, WI

● Mississippi River Gateway Project, IL, MO*

● Northwest Indiana Environmental Initiative, IN

● Saginaw Bay, MI

● Saginaw Bay Urban Targeting Project, MI

● St. Mary's River, MI

● Southeast Chicago Urban Environmental Initiative, IL

● Southeast Michigan Initiative, MI

● Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV*

* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional 

boundaries are summarized under each Region in which they occur. 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Ashtabula River Area of Concern
Size and location: The Ashtabula River Area of Concern (AOC) is located in the northeast corner of 

Ohio. It includes the watershed for the lower Ashtabula River, its tributaries, and the harbor and 

nearshore of Lake Erie. One of the tributaries, Fields Brook (Brook), is a Superfund site. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Region 5 is interested in and committed to trying an alternative 

remediation approach at Ashtabula; specifically, a public-private partnership of agencies and local 

entities. By using a broader base of interests and resources including multiple statutory authorities of 

U.S. EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), a 

more cost-effective remediation can occur. U.S. EPA is facilitating the partnership, which includes local 

industries, government, and the Remedial Action Plan Committee. Working with Superfund program 

activities is also critical to partnership success. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Congress 

U.S. EPA 

Ohio EPA 

Major environmental problems:

● Contaminated sediments (contaminants of concern include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, and to a 

lesser degree some metals) 

● Degraded fish and wildlife populations 

● Consumption of unhealthy fish and wildlife 

● Degradation of fish habitat 

● Degradation of benthos 

Actions taken or proposed: The Ashtabula River AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by 

the U.S. and/or Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is 

being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term course of action for environmental cleanup. A RAP 

Advisory Council, composed of local stakeholders, has been established. Stage I of the RAP, which 

describes the nature and extent of the problems, was completed in 1992, and approved by EPA and the 

International Joint Commission in late 1992. Stage II, which devises a plan for implementing 

remediation, is in its conceptual stages. Recently, the Advisory Council decided to initiate a new tool in 

developing Stage II. 

Focusing on the contaminated sediments in the entire watershed, the Advisory Council is seeking to 

develop a public-private partnership in the Ashtabula. The partnership would combine sediment projects 

in the AOC; the authorities of different agencies; different potential funding sources; and the goals of the 

RAP, citizens, and agencies to save time, money, and effort in developing a solution. Already a 
partnership charter has been signed by stakeholders, agencies, and industrial firms; and more than half a 

million dollars has been committed by EPA, the Ohio EPA, and the Corps to investigate multiparty 

remediation plans. The funds will be used to study locations for and to design a disposal facility to hold 

contaminated sediments. It is hoped that a consensus-based plan focusing on the entire watershed can be 

used to remediate the area instead of Superfund. While Superfund is continuing studies of the river 

contamination at this time, EPA is holding off on formally designating the downstream river a Superfund 

site to see how the partnership develops. 

Superfund activities on the upstream, highly contaminated Brook are continuing and include: 

● A Record of Decision in 1986, which directs design of the Fields Brook Sediment cleanup. 

● A Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to be completed in 1995 describing contamination 

and possible remedial alternatives for sources of contamination along the Brook to ensure that the 

Brook is not recontaminated. 

In addition, an ecological assessment of the floodplain and wetland area surrounding the Brook is being 

conducted and should be completed in early 1995. 

Superfund activities in the river are assessing how wildlife and humans might be exposed to 

contaminated sediments and will, if necessary, assess potential risks and potential remedial alternatives 

associated with this risks. 

Stakeholders:

Boaters 

City manager 

Congressional staff 

Industry 

Local citizens 

Local government agencies 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Ohio Sea Grant 

Port authority 
Soil and Water Conservation District 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Amy Pelka

U.S. EPA Region V

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

(312) 886-0135

FAX: (312) 886-7804

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Big Darby Creek
Size and location: The Big Darby Creek watershed is located in west-central Ohio. The watershed drains 

1443 square kilometers (557 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding through sections 104(b)(3) and 319 of the Clean 

Water Act and has participated in conducting an ecological risk assessment for the watershed. 

Organizations that initiated project: Citizen action groups, such as the Darby Creek Association, along 

with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) 

worked to designate portions of the Big and Little Darby Creeks as a State and Federal Scenic River. The 

Nature Conservancy has raised local and national awareness of the Big Darby Creek watershed and has 

helped to recruit and coordinate stakeholders into the Darby Partners. The stakeholders have initiated 

ecologically important projects in the watershed including the projects involving the U.S. EPA. 

The projects funded through section 319 were initiated by the Union Soil and Water Conservation 

District, Franklin Soil and Water Conservation District, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, and Ohio State University. The Risk Assessment project was initiated 

by the Ohio EPA in response to a request for proposals from the Office of Water. 

Major environmental problems:

● Point and nonpoint source stressors associated with agricultural and residential land uses 

● Projections of increased stress from the conversion of agricultural land to urban and suburban 

development 

Actions taken or proposed: The Ohio Department of Natural Resources and The Nature Conservancy, 

along with other stakeholders, have identified the Big Darby Creek as a high-priority area for protection 

of biological diversity and are trying to develop a long-term management and protection plan for the 

river and riparian areas. The U.S. EPA through the Office of Water and Office of Research and 

Development, and the Ohio EPA are jointly leading an ecological risk assessment case study. The intent 

of the case study is to clearly identify risks to Big Darby Creek so that managers can guide development 

and land use in a manner that (1) attains state criteria for designated uses for the Eastern Corn Belt Plains 

ecoregion throughout the entire Big Darby Creek watershed; (2) maintains exceptional warm-water 

criteria for stream segments having that designation between 1990 and 1995; and (3) allows native 

species to continue to exist in the watershed. 

To achieve short-term improvements in both agricultural and suburban areas, the U.S. EPA is providing 

grants through section 319 of the Clean Water Act. One project supported the compilation of a 

geographic information system data base that is used to identify erodible lands and the benefits of 

conservation practices. In other programs, residents and county officials were taught new technologies 

and conservation practices along with basic information about the ecology of the watershed. Several 

agricultural projects involved the installation and monitoring of best management practices. 
Another grant, under section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act, funded a study of storm water in rapidly 

growing areas of the watershed and supported activities to reduce the effects of urban pollution through 

compliance, best management practices, and education. 

In conjunction with these projects, matching funding and assistance has come from the City of 

Columbus, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio State University, The Nature Conservancy, 

Franklin Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. A 

conservation tillage and increased critical area seedings project, sponsored by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, has been established for the watershed. The project has a goal of reducing sediment by 

45,450 metric tons (50,000 U.S. tons). As of the end of FY94, sediment reduction to the stream is 

estimated at 26,200 metric tons (28,800 U.S. tons). Gross erosion has been reduced by 371,000 metric 

tons (408,000 U.S. tons). The U.S. Geological Survey is in its third year of measuring discharge rates and 

suspended solids from three in-stream gauging stations to identify long-term trends. Nutrients and 

pesticides have been monitored during storm events. The Ohio EPA has evaluated the ecological 

condition of the stream since 1979. Biological sampling in 1992 and 1993, in general, revealed 

improvements in community index scores since 1979. The removal of two dams has permitted the 

upstream migration of some species. Only one dam remains on the mainstem. 

Stakeholders:

Watershed residents 

Darby Creek Association 

Little Darby Creek Preservation Association 

Operation Future Association 

Big Darby Partners 

Local governments, agencies, and officials (townships, towns, cities, and counties) 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

General public 

Private corporations 

The Nature Conservancy 

In Defense of Endangered Species 
Rivers Unlimited Columbus and Franklin County Metropolitan Park District (Metro Park) 

Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Ohio State University 

Ohio State University Extension Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDA Farm Service Agency 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Contacts:

Tom Davenport

U.S. EPA Region V

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 886-0209

FAX: (312) 886-7804

Susan Cormier, Ph.D. (Eco-Risk)

U.S. EPA, EMSL, EMRD

26 West Martin Luther King Dr.

Cincinnati, OH 45268

(513) 569-7995

FAX: (513) 569-7609

E-mail: cormier.susan@epamail.epa.gov
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Cache River
Size and location: The Cache River is located in southern Illinois and is a tributary of the Ohio River. Its 

watershed covers approximately 191,500 hectares (474,000 acres), most of which is agricultural land and 

the Shawnee National Forest. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding for a watershed Resource Planning Initiative, 

cosponsored by The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. EPA has also 

been involved in funding waste treatment plants for local towns and a solid waste study for the region. 

Organization that initiated project:

The Nature Conservancy 

Major environmental problems:

● Sediment and chemical pollution from farming practices 

● Illegal dumping 

Actions taken or proposed: The Nature Conservancy first began buying land in the Cache River 

watershed in the late 1960s. Since then, the Cache River State Natural Area has been established by the 

Illinois Department of Conser vation (IDOC), and numerous federal, state, and local parties have formed 

the Cache River Consortium to address restoration activities in the watershed. EPA has funded a water 

resource planning initiative to identify and obtain land easements in critical areas. EPA is also funding 

wastewater treatment plants in local towns and a solid waste initiative study. 

The Consortium is developing plans to address major resource concerns in the watershed, including 

erosion, open dumping, and water quality. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is embarking on a $1.3 

million, 3-year study to examine the feasibility of installing a number of water and sediment control 

structures. This study is being cost-shared by 50 percent with IDOC. Efforts in the watershed also 

include scientific research by Southern Illinois University, reforestation and wetland creation, and recent 

implementation of a water quality monitoring program. 

Stakeholders:

Ducks Unlimited 

Illinois Department of Conservation 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Illinois Natural Preserves Commission 

Illinois State Water Survey 
Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Shawnee National Forest 

Southern Illinois University 

The Nature Conservancy 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contact:

Ernie Lopez

U.S. EPA Region V (WQW-16J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 886-3017

FAX: (312) 886-7804

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Clinton River Area of Concern
Size and location: The Clinton River is located in southeastern Michigan, just north of Detroit. The river 

flows 130 kilometers (80 miles) from its headwaters to Lake St. Clair near Mt. Clemens and is a tributary 

in the Lake Erie watershed. Before entering Lake St. Clair, the river flows through a natural channel and 

a man-made spillway. The Area of Concern (AOC) consists of the main branch of the Clinton River 

downstream of Red Run (a major tributary of the Clinton River) to the mouth (27 kilometers/17 miles) 

and the spillway (3.2 kilometers/2 miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provides funding for the Clinton River Area of Concern, and also 

participates in its advisory committee. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems:

● Degradation of benthos 

● Degradation of fish populations and habitat 

● Contaminated sediments (contaminants include PCBs, heavy metals, cyanide, ammonia, oil and 

grease, and phenol) 

● High fecal coliform bacteria levels 

● Low dissolved oxygen levels 

● Increased sedimentation (due to the naturally occurring problems of low flow and the decreased 

slope of the river) 

● Municipal and industrial discharges 

● Nonpoint sources of contaminants from urban storm water, agricultural runoff, combined sewer 

overflows (CSOs), ground water contamination, and atmospheric deposition 

Actions taken or proposed: The Clinton River AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by the 

U.S. and/or Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is being 

developed for this AOC to provide a long-term course of action for environmental cleanup. Stage II of 

the RAP, which identifies proposed remedial actions and their method of implementation, is targeted for 

completion by April 1996. The RAP includes 23 recommendations; of these, 6 are for specified actions 

and 14 call for investigations to provide information for further decision-making. Three programs called 

for in the RAP are under way: nonpoint source and erosion control, air quality and monitoring, and 

watershed-funded clearing-house. 

In addition, a variety of other activities have been taken or are under way including: 

● Navigational channel dredging to increase flow rate substantially during high-flow periods only. 

● Sediment deposits dredged from behind the spillway weir. 
● A reconnaissance/feasibility study, which is being done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to 

redesign the weir to allow fish to pass over. The design study will follow in the near future. 

● Current development of a spill response plan for Red Run Drain (portion of the Red Run that has 

been placed underground). 

● Clean-up activities proceeding at four Superfund sites. 

● Reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for three wastewater 

treatment plants, including provisions for treatment or elimination of CSOs, by the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 

● Upgrading of wastewater treatment plants by nine towns in the AOC, reducing discharge of both 

conventional and toxic pollutants and bacterial contamination. 

● Biological surveys and reports completed under nonpoint source surveillance for seven tributaries. 

● Installation of a bottom draw structure at the Lake Orion dam, resulting in cooler water discharges 

to Paint Creek, a tributary to the Clinton River, increasing suitable trout water through the 

summer. 

● Implementation of best management practices to control and prevent nonpoint sources of 

pollution to Gallagher Creek, a tributary to the Clinton River, with focus on storm water control 

and ordinance standards. 

● Development of a training video and manual for the Clinton River Early Warning System 

(CREWS), a voluntary network of residents who help detect spills by observing water conditions 

such as odor and color and reporting changes to the fire department These activities were funded 

by the Clinton River Watershed Council using a Public Participation Grant from the state. 

● Ongoing citizen cleanups and a River Watch program (for reporting of spills). 

● MDNR obligation of $120,000 to conduct remedial investigations to identify the sources of PCBs 

to the Clinton River. 

Stakeholders:>

Clinton River Remedial Action Plan Public Advisory Council 

Clinton River Watershed Council 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Mt. Clemens River Improvement Program (a collection of local entities, including the City of Mt. 

Clemens, citizen groups, service organizations, and local corporations) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:
Callie Bolattino

U.S. EPA Region V (GLNPO)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

(312) 353-3490

FAX: (312) 353-2018

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake Michigan
Size and location: Lake Michigan is 494 kilometers (307 miles) long and 189 kilometers (118 miles) 

wide, covering 57,750 square kilometers (22,300 square miles) of area. Another 118,100 square 

kilometers (45,600 square miles) of land drain, into the lake, and the watershed extends across the States 

of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, Congress designated 

U.S. EPA as the lead agency responsible for the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP). 

Therefore, EPA Region V Water Division chairs the multi-agency workgroup charged with developing 

and implementing the LaMP. EPA staff participate in technical workgroups and ensure public 

participation in the LaMP process. EPA, along with the states and other federal agencies, also provides 

funding for the LaMP implementation projects in the Lake Michigan watershed. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Congress 

Major environmental problems:

Toxic pollutants 

Actions taken or proposed: Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United States 

and Canada, a LaMP for Critical Pollutants has been developed for Lake Michigan. A draft LaMP was 

published in 1992, and revisions were made based on the public comments received. A second draft was 

published in the Federal Register in late 1994. The final LaMP will be published in 1995. The goal of the 

LaMP is to reduce toxic pollutants to restore the beneficial uses of Lake Michigan and prevent any 

further degradation of the lake system from the release of toxic pollutants. 

Several activities have already been initiated directly through the Lake Michigan LaMP process. These 

include: 

● Tributary and air deposition monitoring for LaMP pollutants. 

● Sediment assessment and remediation projects for Lincoln Park Gun Club, Illinois; Manistee 

Lake, Michigan; and Trail Creek, Indiana. 

● Agricultural clean sweep collections for pesticides in Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. 

● Urban clean sweep in northwest Indiana. 

● Pollution prevention technical assistance and education projects in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; 

Chicago, Illinois; and western Michigan. 

● Development of a mass balance model for Lake Michigan. 

● Assessment of potential pollutant loads to Lake Michigan from contaminated sediments. 

● Development of the Great Lakes Envirofacts data management system to provide access to 

loadings and ambient data as well as programmatic data bases. 

A number of other projects are planned or will be implemented based on results of the monitoring study 

or further review of existing information. These include: 
● Continue sediment remediation at high-priority sites, and use results of the Assessment and 

Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) study to select appropriate remediation 

technologies. 

● Continue to identify pollution prevention needs and opportunities for LaMP poll 

● Develop and monitor chemical and biological indicators of ecological health to track progress 

toward restoration of beneficial uses. 

Stakeholders:

Chippewa/Ottawa Fishery Treaty Management Authority 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

Industry 

Local citizens 

Local governments 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Nonprofit organizations 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Contact:

Gary Kohlhepp
U.S. EPA Region V

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 886-4680

FAX: (312) 886-7804

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake Superior EMAP - Great Lakes 

Assessment
Size and location: South shore of Lake Superior from Duluth, Minnesota, to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. 

Nearshore samples include areas of the lake from shoreline to a depth of 100 meters. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The Great Lakes Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

(EMAP) at EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth (ERL-D) is coordinating the research to 

develop and test indicators of trophic status and biological integrity in Great Lakes systems. Research 

efforts on Lake Superior are being supported through a combination of in-house and contract staff using 

the laboratory's 82-foot research vessel. These efforts include collaboration with EPA's Great Lakes 

National Program Office (GLNPO), the National Biological Survey (NBS), and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. EPA EMAP-Great Lakes 

U.S. EPA ERL-Duluth 

Major environmental problems: The Great Lakes aquatic communities continue to be exposed to a 

multiplicity of physical, biological, and chemical stresses. The major environmental stresses include loss 

of biodiversity due to over-fishing and fish stocking, degradation and loss of tributary and nearshore 

habitat, impacts of persistent toxic contaminants, and eutrophication in localized areas. Because Lake 

Superior is generally considered to be the healthiest of the Great Lakes, additional international concern 
has been expressed over the sustainability of this condition. It is also the least studied and understood of 

the Great Lakes. 

Actions taken or proposed: A series of ecosystem-level measurements are being taken to assess the 

effects of stressors on the ecological health of Lake Superior. In addition to improving our knowledge of 

the condition of the lake, data from the field experiments will be used to develop, update, calibrate, and 

validate ecological response models (diatom succession, aquatic bioenergetics, and top-predator 

population models). Stressor and response models will be applied to the data collected to predict the 

effects of historical, present, and future management scenarios. 

Stakeholders: U.S. EPA ERL has been collaborating with the NBS, NOAA, GLNPO, and the 

International Joint Commission (IJC) during the planning, experimental, and assessment phases of these 

projects. Assessment tools and results will be communicated to appropriate management agencies and 

programs (e.g., GLNPO, Regions, states, and other federal agencies) to assist in developing fish and 

contaminant management approaches. 

Contact:

Stephen Lozano

(218) 720-5594

FAX: (218) 720-5539

E-mail: lozano.stephen@epamail.epa.gov@in

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

Wetland Conservation Plan
Size and location: 1120-kilometer (700-mile) stretch from Cairo, Illinois, south to the Gulf of Mexico; 

historical alluvial plain of the Mississippi River. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Currently, providing funding assistance to multiple state agencies within 

the Lower Mississippi Valley, as well as federal interagency projects addressing forestry and resource 

planning issues. EPA and several regional sponsors will be coordinating the development of a regional 

wetlands conservation plan. 

Organizations that initiated project: Multiple federal agencies, including EPA, U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), National Biological Survey (NBS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are initiating ecosystem-scale planning and research efforts in the 

region. 

Major environmental problems:

● Nonpoint source pollution in surface waters 

● Extensive forested wetlands loss 

● Impacted fisheries and wildlife habitats 

● Extensive hydrological modifications 

Actions taken or proposed: This multistate, multiregion initiative focuses on wetland 

restoration/reforestation and reduction of nonpoint source water pollution throughout the Lower 

Mississippi River Alluvial Plain. A regional sponsor will coordinate state and federal efforts by 

developing and implementing a regional wetlands conservation plan. Establishing networks among 

interest groups and data sharing through the use of a geographic information system will be emphasized, 

as well as prioritization of wetland restoration/acquisition sites. 

Stakeholders:

Natural resource state agencies from MS, LA, TN, AR, KY, MO, and IL, agricultural community, 

forestry community, landowners, hunting and outdoor recreation groups, environmental organizations, 

sustainable economy organizations, federal natural resource and public health agencies, including EPA, 

National Biological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

U.S. Geological Service, U.S. Forest Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR). 

Contacts:

Jennifer Derby/Eric Hughes

EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871 ext. 6510 and ext. 6517

Beverly Ethridge/Jay Gamble/Jack Hill

EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-2263

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Maumee River Area of Concern
Size and location: The Maumee River Area of Concern (AOC) is in Lucas County in northwest Ohio. It 

includes the Maumee Bay at the southwestern corner of Lake Erie. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provides funding for the Maumee River Area of Concern and also 

participates in its advisory committee. 

Organization that initiated project:

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) 

Major environmental problems:

● Degradation of fish and wildlife populations 

● Loss of fish and wildlife habitat 

● Degradation of benthos 

● Eutrophication or undesirable algae 

● Impaired drinking water 

● Beach closings 

● Historical discharges from wastewater treatment facilities 

● Industrial dischargers 

● Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and urban runoff 

● Agricultural runoff 

● Dredge disposal 

● Contaminated sediments 

● Contamination from abandoned hazardous waste sites 

Actions taken or proposed: The Maumee River AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by 

the U.S. and/or Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is 

being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term course of action for environmental cleanup. In 

October 1990 the Stage I report of the RAP, which describes the nature and extent of the problems, was 

completed. Stage II activities, which focus on identifying remedial actions and implementation methods, 

are being conducted. 

Data collection efforts have begun in the mainstream Maumee and tributaries to assess the extent of 

contaminated sediments and degraded fish and benthos communities and to evaluate water quality. The 

agricultural committee has developed a management policy statement to provide a greenway and buffer 

strip along all Maumee River and tributary waterways to inhibit further erosion. 

Other actions include: 

● Completion of basinwide intensive surveys (1992-ongoing). 

● Intensive investigation of landfill sources, pathways, and impacts on the AOC. 

● Development of public involvement activities (e.g., workgroups, cleanups, evening socials, and 
Maumee River-related events). 

● Evaluation of hazardous waste sites under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model. 

● Sediment screening of Ottawa River. 

● Reduction of combined sewer overflow (CSO) bypassing to the Maumee River and tributaries as 

a result of a recently completed deep tunnel reservoir project by the Toledo Bayview Plant. 

● Completion of the second field season of a massive effort to evaluate the fish, macroinvertebrates, 

sediment, and habitat of the Maumee River and tributaries by Ohio EPA. 

● Development, with local area high schools, of education and monitoring programs. 

● Completion of a 5-year upgrade to the Perrysburg wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), doubling 

its treatment capacity. 

● Education of local land users on pollution prevention methods for nonpoint source pollution by 

U.S. EPA, Ohio EPA, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS). 

Joint development of a long-term dredged materials management plan among U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Ohio EPA, City of Toledo, U.S. EPA, Toledo Port Authority, ODNR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and NRCS. 

Future actions planned for this area include: 

● Upgrade various municipal WWTPs at an expense of $27 million. 

● Correct CSOs at an estimated investment of $420 million. 

● Abate agricultural and urban nonpoint sources. 

● Address contaminated sediment problems in Swan Creek, Ottawa River, and Maumee River. 

● Preserve Maumee Bay from further filling. 

● Preserve and restore lost wetlands. 

● Conduct river investigations to document impacts on the environment and potential problems 

associated with landfill runoff. 

● Complete Stage II RAP. 

Stakeholders:

Local residents 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments 
Toledo Port Authority 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contact:

Mark Messersmith

U.S. EPA Region V (WQB-16J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

(312) 353-2154

FAX: (312) 886-7804

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern
Size and location: The Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern (AOC) is in the City of Milwaukee. It 

includes the nearshore waters of Lake Michigan, Milwaukee Harbor, and portions of the Milwaukee, 

Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic rivers. Twenty-two square miles of land drain directly to the AOC. This 

57-square-kilometer (22-square-mile) drainage area covers less than 3 percent of all the land draining to 

the estuary. (The AOC encompasses only a small portion of the entire watershed.) 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provides funding for the Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern and 

also participates in its advisory committee. 

Organization that initiated project:

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Major environmental problems:

● Degraded fish and wildlife habitat 

● Degraded benthos, plankton, fish, and wildlife communities 

● Eutrophication 

● Tumors and other deformities in fish 

● Beach closings and other restrictions on full-body contact with surface waters 

● Combined sewer overflows 

● Contaminated sediments 

● Hydromodification 

● Storm water runoff 

● Sewage treatment plant effluent 

● Industrial process and noncontact cooling water discharges 

Actions taken or proposed: The Milwaukee Estuary AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated 

by the International Joint Commission (a U.S.-Canadian commission) in the Great Lakes region. A 

Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term course of action for 

environmental cleanup. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) completed Stage I of 

the RAP, which describes the nature and extent of problems, in March 1991. In July 1994, the WDNR 

released a report describing progress on the identification and implementation of remedial actions. 

The WDNR has designated all six of the watersheds that are tributaries to the AOC as priority 

watersheds under the state s Priority Watershed Program. Designation as such has led to development of 

nonpoint source pollution control plans for all six of the watersheds. 

Development of the plans has enabled the implementation of practices that control discharges of 

pollutants from rural and urban sources. Nearly 150 rural landowners have signed agreements to share 

the $1.4 million cost to implement controls. In addition, 32 public and nonprofit organizations have 

initiated nonpoint source pollution control programs in urban areas. Through mid-1993, the WDNR and 

the 32 organizations spent $2 million to implement the programs. 
The WDNR has allocated $4 million for implementation of the nonpoint source pollution controls in 

1994. Implementation will reduce soil erosion from farmland, construction sites, and stream banks. It 

also will reduce the discharge of livestock waste and household hazardous waste to surface waters. 

Structural controls established in urban environments will reduce pollutant loads from storm water runoff 

and mitigate the adverse hydrologic effects of impervious surfaces. 

EPA is overseeing the design of a remedial action for the Moss-American Superfund site. The site, 

located in the City of Milwaukee, was used for several decades to treat railroad ties with a creosote and 

fuel oil mixture. An investigation of the site indicated the presence of several organic compounds in 

ground water, soil, and Lower Menomoinee River sediment. Among the compounds, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs) were the most prevalent. They were found at concentrations known to promote the 

formation of tumors in fish. 

In 1973, EPA funded the removal and treatment of contaminated sediments from a 1524-meter (5,000-

foot) reach of the Little Menomonee River. Activities to be conducted as part of a full remedial action 

will involve relocation of the Little Menomonee River, removal and treatment of contaminated soil and 

sediment, collection and treatment of contaminated ground water, and isolation of untreated soil and 

sediment. The remedial action is expected to take up to 4 years to implement at a cost of $26 million. It is 

scheduled to begin in 1997. When complete, the remedial action is expected to reduce releases of organic 

compounds to the Lower Menomonee River and the AOC. 

In 1996, local governments will complete a $2.2 billion effort to reduce the frequency of overflows from 

combined sewers and improve the quality of effluent from the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage 

District s (MMSD) two wastewater treatment plants. This effort involves significant improvement to 

existing sewers, the construction of tunnels to store wet-weather flows for subsequent treatment, and 

expansion of the MMSD s two wastewater treatment plants. Reduction in the number of overflow events 

and improvement in treatment plant effluent will significantly reduce the discharge of oxygen-consuming 

matter, solids, pathogens, and toxic substances to the AOC. 

Recently funded projects include: 

● Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District's 1-day clean sweeps: an interim effort to collect 

household hazardous wastes until a permanent storage facility becomes operational (potentially in 

1996). 

● Milwaukee Estuary Sediment GIS Development: The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is 

preparing a study to provide a visual representation of the sediment characteristics in the AOC. 

● North Avenue Dam Impoundment Restoration: This project will help to stabilize exposed 

sediment, restore stream banks, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. 

● Milwaukee River PCB Mass Balance: This study will help to pinpoint major sources of PCBs in 

the watershed. 

Future actions that are planned for the AOC include: 
● Implement programs and practices to control urban and rural nonpoint sources of pollution. 

● Control pollutants discharged from the Milwaukee storm sewer system. 

● Remediate the Moss-American Superfund site. 

● Characterize sediments in streams that are tributaries of the AOC (e.g., Lincoln and Cedar creeks, 

Milwaukee River) and control releases of associated contaminants. 

● Characterize sediments in the AOC and implement actions to minimize the adverse effects of 

associated contaminants. 

● Restore stream banks and create vegetative buffer zones. 

● Aerate a portion of the Menomonee River. 

● Establish a household hazardous waste collection facility. 

● Minimize the introduction of pollutants to sewers and surface waters through public education. 

Stakeholders:

Citizens Advisory Committee 

City of Milwaukee 

Milwaukee County 

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 

Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern 

Milwaukee River Revitalization Council 

Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 

Technical Advisory Committee 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Contacts:

Marsha Jones

WDNR - Southeast District

P.O. Box 12436

Milwaukee, WI 53212
(414) 263-8708

FAX: (414) 263-8483

Steve Jann

U.S. EPA Region V

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604-3590

(312) 886-2446

FAX: (312) 886-7804

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Mississippi River Gateway Project
Size and location: The project area encompasses three counties in Illinois (Madison and St. Clair) and 

Missouri (St. Louis). The project focuses mainly on the western portions of Madison and St. Clair 

Counties of Illinois at the present time. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has been involved with the local community as well as with federal, 

state, and local agencies to address the human health and environmental problems associated with 

hazardous and solid wastes, flooding, chemical disposal, and lead contamination in the community. 

These problems are being addressed through pollution prevention efforts, cleanup of trash and waste 

associated with the lack of garbage pick-up, and compliance assistance/enforcement programs. Concerns 

related to environmental justice are being addressed by working with the local community leaders. EPA 

is also initiating efforts with local environmental groups to begin restoring lost or degraded habitats and 

providing environmental education. 

Organization that initiated project: This effort was begun by EPA Region V but is supported by EPA 

Region VII, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Missouri Department of Health, and the Illinois Department of Public Health. 

Major environmental problems: The major environmental problems are listed above. Some of these are 

related to the economic situation of the community. East St. Louis, Illinois, had lost much of its tax base 

and was unable to provide some of the basic services to its residents, e.g., garbage pickup, adequate 

wastewater treatment, safe housing, etc. By working with the other agencies, EPA has begun to address 

the community's needs. 

Actions taken or proposed: Pollution prevention activities have begun to be implemented in the Greater 

St. Louis area to achieve reductions in pollutants of greatest risk. For instance, an effort has been 

undertaken to reduce human exposure to environmental and household lead. EPA is in the process of 

determining whether minority or low-income populations in the initiative area are disproportionatly 

exposed to hazardous waste, hazardous substances or other hazardous activities. EPA is working to 

develop a community-based public involvement program that encourages dialogue among governments, 

industry, community groups, and others. EPA is also developing a program to address the issue of lost 

and degraded habitats and the use of high quality habitats in environmental education. 

Stakeholders: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Illinois Department of Public Health, Missouri 

Department of Health, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, EPA Re- gions V and VII, 

local community groups and local industry. EPA expects that as the initiative grows, additional agencies 

will assist in this project. 

Contacts:

Linda Hamsing (Karen Lumino)

EPA Region V

(312) 886-0981
Doug Elders

EPA Region VII

(913) 551-7393

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Northwest Indiana Environmental 

Initiative
Size and location: The Northwest Indiana Environmental Initiative centers on the Grand Calumet River 

watershed, approximately 24 kilometers (15 miles) southest of Chicago and encompasses parts of Lake 

and Porter Counties in northwest Indiana. Municipalities include the City of Hammond, the City of East 

Chicago, the City of Gary, and the City of Whiting. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Through a comparative risk analysis, EPA Region V determined this area 

to have the greatest risk to human health and the environment in the region. Following the analysis, EPA 

launched the Northwest Indiana Environmental Initiative, of which the Grand Calumet River/Indiana 

Harbor Canal (GCR/IHC) Area of Concern (AOC) is a major part. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Historically low compliance with federal and state environmental statutes 

● Four to eight million cubic meters (five to ten million cubic yards) of contaminated river and 

harbor sediments (pollutants include chromium, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

● Toxics 

● Five Superfund sites 

● Ground water contaminated with 57 to 114 million liters (15 to 30 million gallons) of free-phase 
hydrocarbons 

● Municipal and industrial discharges 

● Combined sewer overflows 

● Contaminated ground water 

● Storm water runoff 

Actions taken or proposed: EPA is working closely with the Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) on a watershed basis in northwest Indiana. EPA and IDEM have developed a 

strategy for the area and have federal and state workgroups implementing this strategy. EPA actions 

include a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a sediment 

dredging project, targeted enforcement against watershed noncompliers, pollution prevention projects 

and workshops, multimedia site evaluations and cleanups, natural resource damage assessments, and an 

area ground water workgroup developing a map of the extensive ground water contamination. 

Because of water quality problems and other threats to human health and the environment, EPA and 

IDEM have focused the Initiative on the Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor (GCR/IHC) Area of 

Concern (AOC). The GCR/IHC AOC is one of 43 AOCs that have been designated by the U.S. and/or 

Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is being developed for 

this AOC. The RAP will provide EPA and IDEM with a long-term course of action for environmental 

cleanup for the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor. The RAP is addressing controlling nonpoint 

sources of pollution, remediating contaminated sediments, and restoring habitat. 

The Initiative's successes include court-enforceable agreements with facilities at the head of the Grand 

Calumet to clean up wastewater discharges to meet permitted limits and remediate contaminated 

sediments in an 8-kilometer stretch of the river. The agencies secured a $55 million agreement covering 

cleanup, process improvements, and sediment remediation with a facility adjacent to the Indiana Harbor 

Canal. In August 1994, the agencies entered into a ground-breaking voluntary agreement with five 

northwest Indiana companies to control the migration of oil floating on top of the ground water. 

Through the Initiative, the agencies will continue to ensure compliance with all federal and state 

environmental statutes. The agencies will also be working to see that Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

the area are achieved and that methods of pollution prevention are promoted to local industry and 

municipal treatment facilities. The Initiative will direct special attention to efforts necessary for the 

dredging of the Indiana Harbor Canal and the safe disposal/treatment of sediments. EPA has been 

working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a draft Environmental Impact Statement required for 

the dredging of the canal. 

Stakeholders:

Citizens Advisory for Remediation of the Environment (CARE) Committee 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management 
Indiana Department of Natural Resources Industries 

Local environmental groups 

Local municipalities 

Property owners 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Unions 

Contact:

Robert Tolpa

U.S. EPA Region V (WCC-15J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 886-6706

FAX: (312) 886-0168

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Saginaw Bay
Size and location: The Saginaw Bay watershed encompasses over 20,700 square kilometers (8000 

square miles) and is located on the northwestern side of Lake Huron in Michigan. The watershed 

completely surrounds the Saginaw Bay itself. Several large tributaries, including the Saginaw River, Cass 

River, Flint River, Shiawasee River, and Tittabawasee River, provide a source of freshwater to the bay. 

Within the watershed lie the jurisdictions of 22 counties and numerous townships. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provides funding for the Saginaw Bay Area of Concern and also 

participates in its advisory committee. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems: 

● Fish consumption advisories due to contamination with polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

● Eutrophication due to nutrient enrichment 

● Widespread destruction of aquatic habitat from sediment 

● Alteration of aquatic and terrestrial habitat from altered watershed hydrology 

Actions taken or proposed: Saginaw Bay is one of 43 Areas of Concern (AOC) that have been 

designated by the U.S. and/or Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. In 1987, the State of 

Michigan developed a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that provides a long-term course of action for 

environmental cleanup of the Saginaw River and Bay. Through the RAP process and the Saginaw Bay 

National Watershed Initiative, the State of Michigan, along with other partners, has identified priority 

activities to be undertaken to restore and protect the Saginaw Bay watershed. The overall goal for the 

watershed is to develop a comprehensive water quality/resource management effort utilizing the 

resources of federal, state, and local units of government, as well as interested organizations and citizens, 

to identify water quality/resource management issues impacting the use or quality of natural resources in 

the watershed and to implement actions to restore and protect the Saginaw Bay watershed. 

Recent activities to support the goals include: 

● Monitoring in the bay and tributaries. 

● Prioritization of sediment delivery and erosion areas. 

● An aggressive public education campaign. 

● Wetland restoration efforts to support wildlife habitat. 

● Implementation of urban and agricultural best management practices to prevent erosion. 

Stakeholders:
Dow Corning Corporation 

Michigan Association of Conservation Districts 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Michigan Department of Public Health 

Michigan Farm Bureau 

Michigan State University 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Saginaw Basin Alliance 

Saginaw Bay Watershed Council 

Saginaw Valley State University 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Cooperative Extension Service 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

University of Michigan 

Contact:

Nancy Phillips/Tom Davenport

U.S. EPA Region V (WQW-16J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 50504

(312) 886-9376 (Nancy)
(312) 886-0209 (Tom)

FAX: (312) 886-7804

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Saginaw Bay Urban Targeting Project
Size and location: Bay City, Michigan 

Nature of EPA involvement: This project will demonstrate the use of geographic information systems 

(GIS) to develop and implement urban storm water management practices, as well as develop a model 

urban storm water management plan. 

Organization that initiated project:

EPA Region V, GIS Management and Water Offices 

Major environmental problems: Urban runoff is a major concern in most urban and suburban areas 

because of its potential to deliver pollutants to nearby resource areas. The challenge in urban areas is to 

determine effective management plans to prevent or reduce impacts of urban pollution. 

Actions taken or proposed:

● Data base development - collection, preparation, and assembly of digital data layers for Bay City, 

MI required by model (Source Loading and Management Model (SLAMM)). 

● Integration of SLAMM with applicable data layers. 

● Identification of urban stormsheds and loading rates for Bay City and recommendation for 

management strategies. 

● Final report on process, model, and techniques used in implementing the project. 

Stakeholders:

There are several ongoing efforts supported by state and federal funds that address pollutant loading to 

Saginaw Bay and its tributaries. These projects involve working with municipalities to review current 

land management practices, storm water permitting programs, and nonpoint source program 

implementation. 

Contact:

Rick Webster EMSL-LV

U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory

(702) 798-2199

FAX: (702) 798-2692

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

St. Mary's River
Size and location: The St. Mary s River forms one of the borders between the United States and Canada. 

It is also a connecting channel between Lake Superior and Lake Huron. It is located in Chippewa County 

in Michigan s Upper Peninsula. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provides funding for the St. Mary's River Area of Concern and also 

participates on its advisory committee. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems:

● Pollutant discharges from paper and steel industries 

● Discharges from publicly owned treatment works 

● Superfund site Cannelton Site, former tannery 

● Contaminated sediments 

● Flow diversions for navigation and power generation 

● Habitat loss/change 

Actions taken or proposed: The St. Mary's River Area of Concern (AOC) is one of 43 AOCs that have 

been designated by the U.S. and/or Canadian governments in the Great Lakes region. A Remedial Action 

Plan (RAP) is being developed for this AOC to provide a long-term course of action for environmental 

cleanup. Stage I of the RAP, which identified use impairments, their causes, and sources, was completed 

in March 1992, and Stage II development is under way. Stage II focuses on identifying remedial actions 

and their methods of implementation. 

Activities already under way include:

● Sewer separation in the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. 

● Improved treatment by Algoma Steel to enhance removal of oil and grease. 

● Various monitoring and assessment efforts. 

● Superfund remediation work at the Cannelton site. 

● Several pilot-scale in situ sediment remediation projects on the Canadian side of the River to 

evaluate various remediation options (completed). 

Full-scale sediment remediation is also planned. 

Stakeholders:
Environment Canada 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy lead) 

U.S. and Canadian citizens (Binational Public Advisory Committee) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

David Pfeifer

U.S. EPA Region V (WQS-16J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

(312) 353-9024

FAX: (312) 886-7804

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Southeast Chicago Urban Environmental 

Initiative
Size and location: The Southeast Chicago area is a 168-square-kilometer (65-square-mile) area of the 

industrial southeast portion of Chicago and adjacent suburbs. This area was chosen because of its 

concentration of severe environmental problems, dense population, and environmental justice concerns. 

Approximately 400,000 people live in this area. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA is working on several fronts to address environmental problems 

within the community. Through the Environmental Equity Office, EPA is working with the community 

on Lead Abatement Training. A joint project between EPA and HUD on sustainable development is 

being initiated. The goal of this program is to address sustainable development of communities in 

economically and socially disadvantaged neighborhoods. Pollution prevention is being implemented in 

the community through a grant with the Universities of Illinois and Michigan. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems: The area was heavily industrialized and is littered with many 

abandoned plants and factories. There are also several waste disposal facilities in the designated area, and 

there are many sites where "midnight dumping" has occurred. A variety of studies have identified the 

Southeast Chicago area as an area subject to potentially high health risks from exposure to environmental 

contaminants. One study documented in a September 1989 report entitled Estimation and Evaluation of 

Cancer Risks Attributed to Air Pollution in Southeast Chicago identified subareas with particularly high 
risks, and identified that the greatest portion of these risk came from coke ovens. However, scattered 

throughout the area are several small but high-quality pieces of habitat. 

Actions taken or proposed: A coalition of government agencies has been established to address 

environmental problems in the area. Over the next one to two years, the coalition will focus on six 

specific areas: lead, "Brownfields," "Fly Dumping," natural resources, enforcement, and public 

outreach/education. 

As indicated above EPA has begun an environmental education program on lead abatement within the 

community. The actions with HUD and the Chicago Housing Authority are being implemented in public 

housing at a demonstration project. Pollution prevention by industries in the initiative is being 

implemented through the educational program developed by the Universities of Illinois and Michigan. 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has completed free medical screening 

for residents of the Altgeld Gardens area. EPA, ATSDR and the Illinois Department of Public Health 

(IDPH) in May of 1994, began testing the ambient air and indoor air in Southeast Chicago for metals, 

volatile organic compounds and semi-volatiles. This data will be used by ATSDR to complete a health 

assessment of the area. Actions plans are being developed for lead, "Brownfields," "Fly Dumping," 

natural resources, enforcement and public outreach. An Environmental Justice Pilot Project is planned 

for the Summer of 1995. The primary objective of the pilot project is to familiarize teachers in Southeast 

Chicago with environmental issues. 

Stakeholders:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

Cook County Department of Environmental Control 

City of Chicago Departments of Health and the Environment 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Illinois Department of Public Health 

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 

Office of Illinois Attorney General 

U.S. EPA 

Contact:
Willie Harris/Shirley Dorsey

U.S. EPA Region V

Environmental Sciences Division

77 West Jackson Street

Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-2306

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Southeast Michigan Initiative
Size and location: The Southeast Michigan Initiative (SEMI) covers eight counties in and around the 

Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan area and includes five Areas of Concern (AOCs) designated under the 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The five AOC watersheds are Clinton River, River Rouge, 

Detroit River, River Raisin, and St. Claire River. The counties in the initiative area include St. Clair, 

Macomb, Oakland, Livingston, Washtenaw, Wayne, Lenawee, and Monroe. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA works in partnership with other agencies on SEMI, providing staff 

support and funding. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Combined sewer overflow 

● Nonpoint source pollution 

● Sediment contamination 

● Urban air pollution 

Actions taken or proposed: SEMI is a partnership formed among the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources (MDNR), EPA, and other state and local agencies to focus resources in eight counties in the 

Detroit metropolitan area. This partnership was prompted by the recognition that environmental 

problems might be better addressed through a more coordinated effort and that they need not be 

addressed solely by regulatory solutions. It was also recognized that a geographical, cross-media, 

ecosystem, and/or holistic solution might be required for their resolution. 

The agencies base programs will be key tools in this effort. Consequently, intense discussions have been 

initiated between EPA and MDNR. Examples of issues under discussion include remediation of 

industrial waste in landfill along the banks of the Rouge River and remediation of a sediment 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) "hot spot" on the Raisin River. The goal, in general, is to better use the 

permitting, enforcement, and planning processes to further environmental work. 

During 1994, SEMI will develop innovative programs on pollution prevention, Remedial Action Plans 

and sediments, public participation (including risk communication), and compliance and enforcement. 

Several projects already initiated include an industrial pretreatment pollution prevention program for 

publicly owned treatment works, the development of an industrial pollution prevention network, an 

environmental justice study, and a survey of neighborhood environmental problems. In addition, major 

resources have been allocated for contaminated sediment characterization and remediation. 

One project in the SEMI area of particular note is the Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration Project. 

The project, which is funded through $128 million in federal grants, is designed to investigate sources of 

water pollution in a highly urbanized watershed during wet-weather events and to demonstrate methods 
for their control. Additional funds totalling $160 million have been appropriated for this project. 

Stakeholders:

Academic institutions 

Citizen and technical advisory groups for each of the five Areas of Concern 

City of Detroit 

Civil Rights groups 

County governments, health departments, and health providers 

Environmental groups 

Interested citizens 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Regulated community 

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Mardi Klevs

U.S. EPA Region V (WCC-15J)

77 West Jackson Blvd

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 353-5490

FAX: (312) 886-0168

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Tri-State Initiative
Size and location: Covering 600,000 hectares (1.5 million acres) and including 368,000 people, the TriState Initiative is located where the states of Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky meet and includes the 

counties of Boyd and Greenup (Kentucky), Lawrence and Scioto (Ohio), and Wayne and Cabell (West 

Virginia). 

Nature of EPA involvement: To assist in a collective effort to define, remediate and prevent 

environmental threats in the tri-state area. 

Organization that initiated the project:

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems: This area was selected because of the following high risk/priority 

indicators: pollutants released into the environment; known/suspected environmental problems; local 

meteorological conditions; and the level of public concern expressed to EPA. 

Actions taken or proposed: The Air Quality, Risk Analysis, Pollution Prevention, Geographic 

Information System (GIS) and Public Relations workgroups are currently working on the following 

projects: Industry and Community Discussions, Risk Screening/GIS Mapping, Air Toxics Study, 

Pollution Prevention and a Surface Water Study. Teams on the inactive status include Groundwater, 

Waste, and Compliance. 

Stakeholders:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

EPA Regions III, IV and V 

Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection 

Kentucky Partners 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission 

Portsmouth Local Air Quality Agency 

West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection 

Contact:
Richard Schleyer

EPA Region V

Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J0)

(312) 353-5089

FAX: (312) 353-8289

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Region VI Projects

Example projects submitted by Region VI include the 11 projects listed below, plus its large-scale 

initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the multisite projects (see Part III). 

The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale and local-scale projects in this 

Region. 

The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of partners 

involved with EPA, and in their goals. Many are based on river basins, bays/estuaries, and lakes. Other 

projects focus on environmental issues in the international boundary zone with Mexico, long-term 

ecological research in arid lands, and ground water. Erosion of barrier islands and coastal wetlands, 

degradation of estuarine habitats, endangered species issues, declining seafood harvests, agricultural 

wastes and runoff, rangeland impacts, ground water flow and contamination, urban nonpoint sources, and 

conversion of bottomland hardwoods to agriculture are reported among the problems these projects seek 

to address. Actions taken include developing partnerships with a variety of local, state, and federal 

agencies, industries, private citizens' groups, and other organizations. Depending upon the environmental 

problems present, these multiorganizational teams might identify and assess important or degraded 

habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources, and options for 

pollution prevention; propose development or revision of water quality standards; develop outreach and 

educational programs; or jointly develop management plans. Many of the local-scale projects also will 

enhance as well as benefit from the large-scale initiatives occurring in or extending into the Region, 

which include the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative, the Gulf of Mexico Program, the Rio Grande/Rio 

Bravo Watersheds Project, the Great Plains Initiative, the Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership 

Project, the Colorado River Program, and the Rio Grande Basin Landscape-Scale Assessment. 
List of sites

Region VI projects in the Inventory at this time include: 

● Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer Project, OK

● Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary, LA

● Corpus Christi Bay, TX

● Galveston Bay Estuary, TX

● Illinois River - Battle Branch, OK

● Jornada Long-Term Ecosystem Research Project, NM

● Lake Pontchartrain Basin, LA

● Lake Worth, TX

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO*

● Tangipahoa River, LA

● Tensas River Basin Initiative, LA

* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional 

boundaries are summarized under each Region in which they occur. 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer Project
Size and location: The aquifer covers an area of 1300 square kilometers (500 square miles) in the State 

of Oklahoma. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Interagency Agreement, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Oklahoma City, 

Principal Investigator Mark Savoca, 02/01/93-01/31/96, $104,660. Project Officer: Stephen Kraemer, 

USEPA/ORD/ RSKERL-Ada. The Project Officer has an In-house Research Project supporting this 

effort, including an on-site contractor work assignment. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma District 

Major environmental problems: The Arbuckle-Simpson is a U.S. EPA Region VI Sole Source Aquifer. 

The fractured rock aquifer has fresh water to a depth of over 610 meters (2000 feet). Although relatively 

undeveloped, there are critical ecosystems and springs in the area that are threatened by human actions. 

A significant trend of decreased discharge from springs within the Chickasaw National Recreation Area 

has been recorded since 1906, possibly due to overpumping. The city of Ada relies on Byrds Mill Spring 

for 100 percent of its water supply, and historic droughts have reduced the discharge to zero. 

Actions taken or proposed: A field reconnaissance and modeling project has been initiated with the 

USGS. Abandoned oil wells are being used as windows into the subsurface. The holes are being logged 

and hydraulically tested, and water quality samples are being dated so that residence times can be 

estimated. A synoptic survey of spring discharges and static water levels in wells is planned for FY95. A 

regional-scale water budget model is proposed. 

Stakeholders:

State of Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

U.S. EPA 

USGS 

National Park Service (Chickasaw National Recreation Area) 

Municipalities and citizens within the aquifer area 

Contact:

Stephen R. Kraemer

USEPA/RSKERL
POB 1198

Ada, OK 74821 (405) 436-8549

FAX: (405) 436-8703

E-mail: kraemer@ad3100.ada.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary

Size and location: The Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary consists of adjacent basins that cover more than 1.6 
million hectares (4 million acres) of south-central Louisiana, between the Mississippi River and the 

Atchfalaya River. Parts or all of 15 parishes are included in the study area. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees in the 

program. 

Organizations that initiated project:

State of Louisiana/Department of 

Environmental Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Loss of more than 1700 square kilometers (656 square miles) of productive wetlands and barrier 

islands 

● Hydrological modification 

● Loss of sediments 

● Habitat loss/modification 

● Changes in living resources 

Actions taken or proposed: Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary was selected for inclusion in the National 

Estuary Program in 1990. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) is being 

developed by a coalition of affected agencies, industries, and other organizations to identify detailed 

remedial action plans. 

In order to assess future environmental conditions in the estuarine system, and to evaluate potential 

management measures, the program will use two state-of-the-art predictive models. Although the two 

models address different parameters, hydrologic alteration and landscape change, they are being 

developed in close coordination with one another. This coordination is essential because the hydrology of 

the system greatly affects the rate and timing of habitat change. 

Other activities/studies include: 

● Working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to determine the extent of 

environmental damage caused by Hurricane Andrew on the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary system, 

and to develop plans to minimize future impacts. 

● Mapping the oyster-producing areas within the system. This will assist in evaluating how the 

oyster fishery is influenced by environmental changes within the estuaries. 
● Survey of vegetative damage caused by nutria herbivory in the watersheds. This will provide 

information regarding the distribution of damaged areas, species of vegetation being impacted, 

and status of recovery of damaged areas. 

● Locating, characterizing, and mapping storm water drainage stations withinn the system. By 

focusing on storm water runoff discharge and its potential contribution to elevated levels of fecal 

coliform bacteria in areas that support recreation and shellfish, it will assist in developing a storm 

water management strategy. 

● Measuring the input and distribution of suspended sediments and other aquatic parameters in the 

western Terrebonne marshes, and determining the system's response to those inputs. This involves 

determining the distribution of selected water column parameters, and how their distribution 

relates to forcing functions such as tide and river discharge. 

● Developing a Wetlands Workshop to increase public awareness regarding environmental 

problems and issues facing Louisiana's coast. 

● ? Producing a high-quality video focusing on residential sewage treatment systems, and 

development of support materials. This will educate the public regarding the importance of 

maintaining or installing a treatment system. 

Stakeholders:

Educational institutions 

Federal government agencies 

Industries and businesses 

Local citizens 

Local government agencies 

Regional planning agencies 

Scientific community 

State government agencies 

Various user groups 

Contacts:

EPA: 
Barbara Keeler (6W-QM)

U.S. EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue

Suite 1200NEP

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-6698

FAX: (214) 665-6689

Local: 

Dr. Steve Mathies, Director

Barataria-Terrebonne NEP

Nicholls State University Campus

P.O. Box 2663

Thibodaux, LA 70310

(504) 447-0868 or 1-800-259-0869

FAX: (504) 447-0870

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Corpus Christi Bay

Size and location: The Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program (CCBNEP) encompasses the 
estuarine environment of 120 kilometers (75 miles) of the south-central Texas coastline and the 12 

member counties of the Coastal Bend Council of Governments. This 1425-square-kilometer (550-squaremile) area includes all bays and saltwater bayous in the Arkansas, Corpus Christi, Baffin, and upper 

Laguna Madre Bay systems. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provides 75 percent funding for the program and also provides 

technical and program guidance. This support includes a full-time coordinator and participation in the 

program's policy, management, and technical committees. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Office of the Governor of Texas 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Limited freshwater inflows to the Corpus Christi Bay system 

● Loss of wetlands, seagrasses, and other critical habitats 

● Altered estuarine circulation 

● Negative impacts from dredging and the disposal of dredged materials 

● Impacts of persistent brown tide 

● Degradation of water quality in the estuaries and their tributaries from point and nonpoint sources 

of pollution 

● Endangered species issues: whooping crane, piping plover, and Kemp?s Ridley sea turtle 

Actions taken or proposed: Corpus Christi Bay was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary 

Program in 1992. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) is being developed for 

Corpus Christi Bay that recommends actions to protect and enhance the water quality and living 

resources of the bay. 

The CCMP will outline specific actions, schedules, and budgets to remediate those problems identified 

by the CCBNEP. The actions will be developed using a consensus-based approach involving all possible 

affected parties. The CCMP will be a truly comprehensive plan including commitments and plans for 

financing, implementing, and monitoring priority management actions. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural interests 
Business and industry representatives 

Citizens' groups 

Federal agencies 

Local agencies and governments 

Local citizens 

State agencies 

Universities 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Laura Radde

U.S. EPA Region VI (6W-QM)

1445 Ross Avenue 

Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-6697

FAX: (214) 665-6689

State: 

Richard Volk, Director

CCBNEP

TAMU - Corpus Christi Campus

Campus Box 290

6300 Ocean Boulevard

Corpus Christi, TX 78412

(512) 985-6767

FAX: (512) 985-6301

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Galveston Bay Estuary

Size and location: Galveston Bay Estuary is located near Houston, Texas, and empties into the Gulf of 
Mexico. The estuary itself covers 1550 square kilometers (600 square miles) and has a watershed that 

encompasses 82,880 square kilometers (32,000 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding, and technical and programmatic support and has participated in various committees in the 

program. 

Organization that initiated project:

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (formerly Texas Water Commission) 

Major environmental problems:

● Wetland loss 

● Nonpoint source pollution 

● Sewer overflows/bypasses 

● Possible future alterations of freshwater inflow 

● Aquatic toxicity 

● Living resources declines 

● Poor shoreline management practices 

● Oil and chemical spills 

● Bioaccumulation of toxics in seafood 

● Illegal connections to storm sewers 

● Low dissolved oxygen 

● Oyster bed closures 

● Poor water and sediment quality in marinas 

● Shoreline erosion 

● Bay debris 

● Risks of contact recreation due to pathogens 

● Exotic species 

Actions taken or proposed: Galveston Bay Estuary was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary 

Program in 1988. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) is being developed for 

Galveston Bay that recommends priority corrective actions to restore and maintain the estuarine 

resources. Costs for implementation of the CCMP are projected to be about $36.5 million. 

Actions that have been taken in the bay include: 

● Designation of two State Coastal Preserves. 

● Proposed designation of Christmas Bay as an Outstanding National Resource Water under the 

state's water quality standards. 

● Restored shoreline vegetation in several areas. 
● Conducted industrial pollution prevention activities. 

● Built a 2-hectare (5-acre) oyster reef using artificial substrate. 

● Increased use of pump-outs by recreational boaters through an intensive education effort. 

● Implemented a continually expanding citizen monitoring program. 

● Implemented a Citizens' Pollution Reporting Hotline. 

● Developed a seafood consumption safety program. 

Some of the most important actions that have yet to be taken but that have been proposed in the 

development of the CCMP include: 

● Acquire and protect quality wetlands. 

● Restore, create, and protect wetlands. 

● Implement storm water control programs for local cities. 

● Establish residential load reduction programs. 

● Correct malfunctioning septic tanks. 

● Eliminate or reduce bypass and overflow problems. 

● Issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for control of oil and gas 

discharges. 

● Establish sediment quality criteria. 

● Determine total maximum daily load for oxygen demand and nutrients. 

● Reduce nutrient and biological oxygen demand loadings to problem areas. 

● Establish a planning program for shoreline development. 

● Reduce water consumption. 

● Implement a baywide effort to strengthen species management. 

A unique feature of the Galveston Bay program was the use of contingent valuation to determine an 

estimated value for the resource. 

Stakeholders:

Business and commerce 

Commercial fishing 

Environmental groups 

Federal agencies 

Local citizens 

Local governments 
Local industries 

Recreational fishing 

State government agencies 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Ken Teague 

U.S. EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, TX 75202 

(214) 665-6687 

FAX: (214) 665-6689 

Local: 

Dr. Frank Shipley

Program Director

Galveston Bay NEP

Bay Plaza One

Suite 210

West Bay Area Blvd.

Webster, TX 77598

(713) 332-9937

FAX: (713) 332-8590

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Illinois River - Battle Branch

Size and location: The Battle Branch watershed is a subwatershed within the Illinois River basin. It 
contains approximately 14,500 hectares (36,000 acres) and is located in Delaware County, Oklahoma. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provided financial assistance through Clean Water Act section 319(h) 

funds, to support the demonstration of best management practices (BMPs) and monitoring to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the BMPs implemented. 

Organization that initiated project:

Cherokee Hills Resource Conservation District 

Major environmental problems: Nutrient pollution from a variety of sources including: 

● Inadequate rural wastewater systems 

● Disposal of other domestic refuse 

● Undesirable techniques for disposal of dead poultry or other animals 

● Livestock holding areas and lagoons associated with dairy operations 

● Excessive application of poultry litter and other animal wastes to agricultural pasture lands (more 

than 22,000 metric tons (24,200 tons) of poultry and dairy waste per year) 

Actions taken or proposed:

This project was divided into four major components: 

(1) Install best management practices (BMPs) using structural or vegetative measures suited to a program 

of landowner cost-sharing. 

(2) Support development of animal waste plans through technical and/or financial assistance to 

landowners. Promote voluntary landowner adoption of such plans. 

(3) Conduct regular monitoring to document the effectiveness of installed BMP measures in improving 

water quality. 

(4) Use information learned from Battle Branch project to facilitate the transfer of effective BMP 

approaches to other small watershed units within the Illinois River basin. 

The project manages nutrient sources on-site as thoroughly as possible through installation of waterquality-oriented BMPs. BMPs that used proper land application techniques and waste handling methods 

to reduce the amount of nutrients entering Battle Branch and its tributaries were developed. To date, 

approximately 84 percent of landowners in the Battle Branch watershed have signed up for participation 

in the project. 
Implementation of BMPs in the Battle Branch watershed has significantly reduced nutrient 

concentrations. During runoff events, nitrate levels have decreased as much as 72 percent and total 

phosphorus levels have decreased as much as 35 percent. Further, it is projected that if similar reductions 

could be achieved in all creeks of the Illinois River basin, it would represent a significant reduction in 

nutrient loading to the Illinois River. Examples of implemented BMPs include: 

● Conservation plans 

● Waste management plans 

● Rural wastewater systems 

● Poultry composters 

● Riparian tree planting 

● Waste storage structures 

Stakeholders:

Businesses 

Government agencies 

Local citizens 

Special interest groups 

Contact:

Russell Bowen 

U.S. EPA Region VI (6W-QS)

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-7140

FAX: (214) 665-6689

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Jornada Long-Term Ecosystem Research 

Project
Size and location: The project is located on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) Jornada Experimental Range and New Mexico State University Ranch. The 

total area of the two properties, located north of Las Cruces, Dona Ana County, New Mexico, is 195,360 

hectares (483,560 acres). 

Nature of EPA involvement: Collaborative research programs under the supervision of Dr. Walter G. 

Whitford (ST) Senior Research Ecologist, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas 

and Dr. Kris Havstad, Director, USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas, Nevada 

Major environmental problems: This long-term experiment is designed to examine the effects of single 

and multiple stressors on rangeland ecosystem responses. Stressors examined in the experiment include 

grazing, drought, fire, and soil nutrient depletion. Main effects are shrub removal and grazing; split 

effects are drought, fire, and nutrient depletion. Ecosystem parameters measured in the study include 

vegetation composition, cover, and productivity; soil microarthropod populations; ant communities 

(species abundances); rodent species abundance, insect abundance; lizard species abundances; soil 

respiration; soil organic matter; size of erosion cells; soil depth; and soil bulk density. 

Sensitivity of indicators of rangeland health is also a component of the experiment. Comparisons of 

indicators values on sites of known history of disturbance and change will be made. Indicators examined 

include vegetation composition and cover, soil stability, 14 parameters that provide measures of 

ecosystem capacity for conserving and retaining the essential resources (water and nutrients), and faunal 

indicators (relative abundances of breeding birds, wintering birds, and ants). 

AVHRR imagery will be applied to classifying and assessing degradation of rangeland ecosystems. Sites 

with known histories of disturbance and change will be used to provide ground truth and calibration for 

AVHRR imagery, which uses differences in seasonal patterns of green-up of C3 and C4 species to 

classify vegetation and to rank sites in terms of vegetative cover. 

Actions taken or proposed: A 5-year interagency agreement between the U.S. EPA and USDA-ARS is 

in place. The first year of research was completed on August 15, 1994. The multiple stressor experiment 

set- up is complete, and a complete set of baseline data has been gathered. One paper on AVHRR 

imagery is in review in Ecological Applications. 

Stakeholders:

EPA's global climate change program 
National Science Foundation - Long-Term Ecological Research Program 

North American Free Trade Agreement Interests 

USDA-ARS 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Contact:

Walter G. Whitford

USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range

Dept. 3JER

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, NM 88003

Phone (505)646-8032

FAX (505)646-5889

E-mail: wawhitfo@nmsu.edu

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Size and location: Lake Pontchartrain and its adjacent lakes form one of the largest estuaries in the 

United States. Nearly 1.5 million people (one-third of the entire population of Louisiana) live in the 14 

parishes of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. The Lake Pontchartrain basin is a 12,170-square-kilometer 

(4,700-square-mile) watershed in southeastern Louisiana, stretching from the State of Mississippi on the 

north and east to the Mississippi River on the west and south, and to Breton Sound at the Gulf of Mexico. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Cooperative agreements with the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation 

(LPBF) and participation on the LPBF's Inter-Agency Working Group. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation 

U.S. Congress 

Major environmental problems:

● Nonpoint source pollutants from sewage and farm animal wastes 

● Saltwater intrusion 

● Stormwater runoff 

● Sewage from fishing camps and poorly sewered and nonsewered communities 

● Habitat destruction from rapidly expanding urban development 

● Commercial activities along the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal 

● Loss of wetlands 

● Dwindling grassbeds 

● Diminished shellfish and fish harvests 

● Closed beaches 

● Occasional occurrence of oxygen-deficient areas ("dead zones") in the lake 

Actions taken or proposed: A Comprehensive Management Plan that reflects a holistic watershed 

approach to solving the water quality problems has been developed for the Lake Pontchartrain basin. A 

number of projects are under way, including: 

● A pilot storm water treatment effort (with created wetlands and retention ponds). 

● A basinwide educational program. 

● Continued construction and clean-out of no-discharge dairy waste lagoons in Tangipahoa Parish. 

● A submerged aquatic vegetation restoration project. 

● Citizens monitoring projects. 

● A model ordinance project on the North Shore. 

Stakeholders:
Businesses (industry, fishing, agriculture, others) 

Government agencies (local, state, and federal, environmental, parks, recreation, land use, etc.) 

Local citizens 

Special interest groups (environmental, recreation, preservation, education, etc.) 

Contacts:

EPA: 

Karen Young

U.S. EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-6689

FAX: (214) 665-6679

State: 

Carlton Dufrechou

Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation

P.O. Box 6965

Metairie, LA 70009

(504) 836-2215

FAX: (504) 836-7283

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake Worth

Size and location: Lake Worth is located in north-central Texas. The lake covers approximately 20 
hectares (50 acres) and has a watershed of 5346 square kilometers (2064 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: Award grant authority and project management under the Clean Lakes 

Program (section 314 of the Clean Water Act). 

Organizations that initiated project:

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

City of Fort Worth 

Major environmental problems:

● Increasing eutrophication 

● Algae blooms 

● Sedimentation 

● Agricultural (dairy farms) and mining (sand and gravel operations) impacts on lake water quality 

and aquatic habitat 

Actions taken or proposed: Texas received a Clean Lakes Program grant in 1987 to conduct a Phase I 

diagnostic/feasibility study for Lake Worth and its watershed. This study analyzed the lake's condition 

and determined the causes of that condition, examined the watershed to determine the sources of 

pollution, and then evaluated solutions and recommendations for the most feasible procedures to restore 

and protect lake water quality. 

In 1990, a Phase II Clean Water Lakes grant was awarded. The Phase II project will translate the Phase I 

recommendations into action. Phase II projects implement in-lake restoration work as well as critical 

watershed management activities to control nonpoint source pollution to a lake. Several restoration 

activities are under way including: 

● Construction of a pressurized sewage collection system to replace septic systems currently 

causing nonpoint source pollution around the lake. 

● Removal of submerged stumps in the lake. 

● Development of a comprehensive basin water quality management plan. 

● Possible enhancement of an existing wetland to remove nutrient loading to the lake. 

Stakeholders:

City of Fort Worth 

Dairy owners 
Local citizens 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Recreation industry 

Sand and gravel mining operators 

Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement District 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

Trinity River Authority 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contacts:

State: 

Arthur Talley

TNRCC

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

(512) 239-4546

FAX: (512) 239-4410

Local: 

Jim Scanlan

City of Fort Worth

P.O. Box 870

Fort Worth, TX 76101

(817) 871-8203

FAX: (817) 871-8195

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

Wetland Conservation Plan
Size and location: 1120-kilometer (700-mile) stretch from Cairo, Illinois south to the Gulf of Mexico; 

historical alluvial plain of the Mississippi River. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Currently, providing funding assistance to multiple state agencies within 

the Lower Mississippi Valley, as well as federal interagency projects addressing forestry and resource 

planning issues. EPA and several regional sponsors will be coordinating the development of a regional 

wetlands conservation plan. 

Organizations that initiated project: Multiple federal agencies, including EPA, U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), National Biological Survey (NBS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), are initiating ecosystem-scale planning and research efforts in the 

region. 

Major environmental problems: Nonpoint source pollution in surface waters, extensive forested 

wetlands loss, impacted fisheries and wildlife habitats, extensive hydrological modifications. 

Actions taken or proposed: This multistate, multiregion initiative focuses on wetland restoration/ 

reforestation and reduction of nonpoint source water pollution throughout the Lower Mississippi River 

Alluvial Plain. A regional sponsor will coordinate state and federal efforts by developing and 

implementing a regional wetlands conservation plan. Establishing networks among interest groups and 

data sharing through the use of a geographic information system will be emphasized, as well as 

prioritization of wetland restoration/acquisition sites. 

Stakeholders:

Natural resource state agencies from MS, LA, TN, AR, KY, MO, and IL, agricultural community, 

forestry community, landowners, hunting and outdoor recreation groups, environmental organizations, 

sustainable economy organizations, federal natural resource and public health agencies, including EPA, 

National Biological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

U.S. Geological Service, U.S. Forest Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR). 

Contact:

Jennifer Derby/Eric Hughes

EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871 ext. 6510 and ext. 6517

Beverly Ethridge/Jay Gamble/Jack Hill
EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-2263

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Tangipahoa River

Size and location: The Tangipahoa River watershed includes about 214,000 hectares (529,600 acres), of 
which 67 percent are in Louisiana, mostly located in Tangipahoa Parish. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provided financial assistance, through Clean Water Act section 106 

and 319(h) funds, to support oversight of dairy lagoon construction, ground water monitoring to ensure 

the effectiveness of the lagoons, and demonstration of proper operation and maintenance practices. 

Organization that initiated project:

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Major environmental problems:

● Nutrient and sediment nonpoint source pollution 

● Bacterial contamination 

● Improperly functioning municipal wastewater treatment facilities 

● Runoff from unsewered communities, trailer parks, and homes (lack of a septic system or septic 

tank failure) 

● Runoff and discharges from dairies and other concentrated animal operations 

● Runoff from truck farming, forest harvest areas, and roads 

Actions taken or proposed: Louisiana has targeted the Tangipahoa River within its Nonpoint Source 

Management Program to reduce bacterial contamination. More specifically, the Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has three nonpoint source pollution control cooperative agreements 

(section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act) with EPA, which contain activities/projects within the 

Tangipahoa River watershed, to address bacterial and nonpoint source pollution. 

LDEQ has implemented an educational program in the areas of Tangipahoa Parish that are listed in the 

Nonpoint Source Assessment Report as having septic tank problems. The purpose is to educate local 

people about how their individual wastewater problems contribute to bacterial contamination of the river. 

LDEQ has been working with state and federal agricultural agencies on a project to implement Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) designed no-discharge lagoon systems into the dairies that 

operate in Tangipahoa Parish. There are approximately 273 dairies in the parish, and approximately 225 

have agreed to participate in either the NRCS or the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 

federal cost-share program for installation of the lagoons. Of the 225 dairymen who have agreed to 

participate in the federal cost-share program, approximately 93 lagoon systems have been installed. The 

purpose of these lagoons is to reduce bacterial and nutrient loading to the Tangipahoa River. 

In addition to the federal cost-share program, the Louisiana State Legislature enacted a provision to 

establish a state cost-share program to assist the dairymen in meeting the installation costs of the lagoon 

systems. First-year funding for the state cost- share program was $350,000; the second-year funding for 

the program totaled $250,000. The state cost- share program has been successful, with approximately 80 
dairymen participating. 

LDEQ has implemented a series of five dairy demonstration field days to educate dairymen on how the 

solids in the lagoon systems need to be cleaned out every 2 to 4 years, if the systems are to continue to 

function as no-discharge systems. The demonstration included information on nutrient availability in the 

lagoon systems and how this translates to nitrogen and phosphorus values that can be applied to the 

dairymen?s fields. The equipment that is used to pump solids from the lagoon system was available and 

functioning at the demonstration site, to show dairymen what was involved in pumping the lagoons and 

land-applying wastes to their fields. These demonstrations were well attended by more than 100 

dairymen in Tangipahoa Parish. 

The Department of Health and Hospitals has estimated a reduction of approximately 3.79 million liters (1 

million gallons) a day of untreated sewage being discharged into the river, and the water quality data are 

beginning to show measurable declines in the concentration of fecal coliform bacteria within the 

Tangipahoa River. 

Stakeholders:

Businesses 

Government agencies 

Private citizens 

Special interest groups 

Contact:

Russell Bowen, 6W-QS

U.S. EPA Region VI 

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-7140

FAX: (214) 665-6689

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Tensas River Basin Initiative
Size and location: The Tensas River flows approximately 504 kilometers (315 miles) through the upper 

northeast part of Louisiana, eventually emptying into the Red River. The Tensas River National Wildlife 

Refuge, established in 1980, consists of 26,260 hectares (65,000 acres) of extensive bottomland 

hardwood swamps. The Tensas River Basin Initiative is located in the upper Tensas watershed of 

Louisiana, a 303,000-hectare (750,000-acre) watershed in portions of East Carroll, Franklin, Madison, 

and Tensas Parishes. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Section 104(b) and 319 grants were awarded to the Louisiana Department 

of Environmental Quality to document and implement a Tensas Model incorporating the Watershed 

Protection Approach, in addition to public outreach and geographic information system (GIS) 

documentation to support the overall effort. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and EPA's Corvallis Lab worked together to apply a 

synoptic assessment approach to identify potential wetland restoration sites in the Tensas River basin. 

Results will be used as a model for other watersheds within the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain 

ecosystem, including the Cache-White River basin in the Arkansas Delta. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Northeast Delta Resource Conservation and 

Development Board 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

The Nature Conservancy 

Major environmental problems:

● Historic conversion of bottomland hardwoods to agriculture, resulting in loss of wetlands 

● Channelization and loss of riparian areas 

● Water quality degradation 

● Reduction in wildlife habitat and biodiversity 

● Nonpoint source pollution 

● Environmental justice (most impoverished area in the United States) 

● Loss of flood control functions 

Actions taken or proposed: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ) received a 

grant from EPA to develop a comprehensive watershed protection plan for the Tensas River, using a 

holistic approach. LADEQ has contracted with The Nature Conservancy to develop the watershed 

protection plan for the Tensas River Watershed. An additional EPA grant to the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) in Louisiana contributed to the development of a program-neutral River 
Basin Study. A Technical Steering Committee composed of representatives from various state and 

federal agencies, nonprofit and special interest groups, and local citizens, and chaired by the local Farm 

Bureau Representative, meets quarterly. 

The Northeast Resource Conservation and Development Board, through funding from EPA, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, and The Nature Conservancy, has hired a Watershed Manager to 

inform rural landowners of the project and to communicate between the participating partners (agencies) 

and the public. The U.S. Geological Survey has included the Tensas River basin in the Mississippi 

Embayment National Water Quality Assessment study unit and will develop a proposal for participation 

by five states to restore hydrology to prechannelized conditions. 

The Tensas effort is serving as a model for two other watershed projects within the Lower Mississippi 

Delta. A Draft River Basin Study is due in late 1994. The study will have an individual watershed focus 

and will use Public Law 566 funds for watershed planning. This will give landowners money for 

watershed restoration. The community of Richland will target the Boeuf River/Richland Creek 

subwatershed for nonpoint source runoff reduction. 

A Final Report entitled Selecting Sites for Wetlands Restoration in the Tensas River Basin, Louisiana: A 

Case Study of Landscape Analysis Using the Synoptic Assessment Methodology was submitted to EPA 

by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The report includes characterizations of natural 

and socio-economic resources, assessment of wetland values and functional losses, development of 

wetland restoration criteria and rules of combina-tion, and identification and characterization of potential 

wetland restoration areas in the basin. GIS mapping products were developed to assist in the assessment 

process. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural industry 

Agricultural organizations 

Conservation organizations 

County and parish governments 

Cultural heritage organizations 

Environmental organizations 

Federal, state, and local agencies 

Flood control interests 
Forest products industry 

Grass-roots groups 

Hunting and fishing interests 

Local citizens 

Planning agencies 

Recreation industry 

State and local agencies 

Tourism industry 

Universities 

Urban interests 

Contacts:

Jay Gamble

U.S. EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Ave. (6E-FT)

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-8339

FAX: (214) 665-7446

Jack Hill

USDA Forest Service

c/o EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Ave. (6E-FT)

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-6597

FAX: (214) 665-7446

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Region VII Projects

Example projects submitted by Region VII include the 22 projects listed below, plus its large-scale 

initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the multisite projects (see Part III). 

The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale and local-scale projects in this 

Region. 

The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of partners 

involved with EPA, and in their goals. Many are based on lake or reservoir basins, and others involve 

ground water, large rivers and small- to moderate-size creeks, wetlands, and a prairie site. Sediments, 

nutrients and pesticides from croplands, rare and endangered species issues, habitat loss, eutrophication, 

erosion and soil loss, streambank degradation, channel modification, industrial discharges, and 

impairment of recreational uses are reported among the problems these projects seek to address. Actions 

taken include developing partnerships with a variety of local, state and federal agencies, industries, 

private citizens' groups, and other organizations. Depending upon the environmental problems present, 

these multi-organizational teams might identify and assess important or degraded habitats; sponsor 

needed research; monitor and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources, and options for pollution 

prevention; propose development or revision of water quality standards; develop outreach and 

educational programs; or jointly develop management plans. Many of the local-scale projects also will 

enhance as well as benefit from the large-scale initiatives in the Region, which include the Great Plains 

Initiative and the Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative. 

List of sites

Region VII projects in the Inventory at this time include: 
● Beeds Lake, IA

● Big Spring Basin, IA

● Centerville Reservoirs Project, IA

● Cheyenne Bottoms Wetland Project, KS

● Clear Lake, IA

● Eastern Nebraska Saline Wetlands, NE

● Elm Creek, NE

● Hillsdale Reservoir, KS

● Iowa Great Lakes, IA

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO*

● Meramec River, MO

● Mississippi River Gateway Project, IL, MO*

● Omaha Stretch of the Missouri River, IA, NE

● Papio Lakes Project, NE

● Pine Creek, IA

● Platte River, NE

● Salt Valley Lakes Project, NE

● Storm Lake Project, IA

● Upper Big Mill Creek, IA

● Upper Niangua River Watershed, MO

● Walnut Creek Prairie Restoration Project, IA

● Walnut Creek Watershed Project, IA

* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional 

boundaries are summarized under each Region in which they occur. 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Beeds Lake

Size and location: Beeds Lake has an 7662-hectare (18,966-acre) watershed and is located in Franklin 

County in north-central Iowa. 
Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded 319(h) grant funds (FY93 $272,862) to support the 

project coordinator, public information/education program on agricultural NPS control, tech transfer 

activities, and selected financial incentives for best management practice (BMP) implementation and 

demonstration. 

Organizations that initiated project: Friends of Beeds Lake 

Franklin County Soil and Water Conservation District 

Major environmental problems:

● Sediment, nutrients, and pesticides from cropland 

● Animal wastes 

Actions taken or proposed: The Beeds Lake project was initiated with fiscal year 1993 Clean Water Act 

section 319 funds. The state's Resource Enhancement and Protection Program and the Agricultural 

Stabilization and Conservation Service Water Quality Incentive Program are also providing funding. The 

project workplan lays out a 3-year project, but with the involvement of an active citizens' group, 

watershed protection activities should extend beyond the life of the funds. 

Project objectives include reducing sedimentation by 70 percent and encouraging the farmers to apply 

best management practices such as no-till, contour farming, and nutrient and pesticide management on 

the 2200 most critical hectares (5500 acres) upstream from the lake. Seventy percent of the watershed 

landowners are targeted for involvement over the next 2 years. Grass/tree filter strips, pasture and 

hayland management, critical area planting, animal waste management, stream bank stabilization, and 

well testing are among the other activities planned. 

Stakeholders:

Boy Scouts of America 

Ducks Unlimited 

Franklin County Board of Supervisors 

Franklin County Conservation Board 

Franklin County Sanitarian 

Franklin County Soil and Water Conservation District 
Friends of Beeds Lake 

Future Farmers of America 

Hampton Fish and Wildlife Club 

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Iowa State University Extension 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Pheasants Forever 

The Jaycees 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USDA Farm Service Agency 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Contact:

Ubbo Agena 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Wallace Office Building

Des Moines, IA 50319

(515) 281-6402

FAX: (515) 281-8895

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Big Spring Basin

Size and location: Big Spring Basin is a 267-square-kilometer (103-square-mile) ground water basin in 

Clayton County in northeast Iowa. 
Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded approximately $195,000 in grant funds to support water 

quality monitoring, biological assessment, and a public information/education program. EPA is 

represented on the advisory group to the Big Spring Project (and others related to the project, e.g., Iowa 

consortium on Agriculture and Water Quality). 

Organization that initiated project:

Iowa Consortium on Agriculture and Water Quality 

Major environmental problems:

● Elevated nitrate and coliform levels in farmstead wells 

● Herbicides including atrazine in ground and surface water 

Actions taken or proposed: The Big Spring project comprises a comprehensive multi-disciplinary 

approach including research, demonstrations, and education programs. The research phase was started in 

1981, and the demonstration program started in earnest in 1986. Project activities are ongoing, with 

funding from numerous sources, including EPA, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

various state programs, and others. Because it takes a long time for water quality monitoring to provide 

conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of best management practices, monitoring will continue over the 

next several years, even though the major portion of funding for the demonstration projects has expired. 

The project focuses on the impacts of agricultural activities on ground and surface water. Specific actions 

include: 

● Demonstration sites for animal waste management and various crop-related activities such as 

alfalfa management and weed management. 

● Collection of detailed information through monitoring. 

● Studies of the basin's aquatic ecology. 

● Examination of the impacts of agriculture on aquatic ecosystems, and in turn assessment of 

nutrient losses that are taken up in this ecosystem. 

● Surveys of farm management practices and chemical use. 

● Extensive publicity and public education activities. 

● Numerous field days for national and international visitors, as well as for local and regional 

interests. 

The Big Spring project has been the basis for other innovative initiatives in Iowa such as the Integrated 

Farm Management Program and the Model Farms Demonstration Program. Iowa has been able to 

demonstrate significant reductions in nitrogen fertilizer use across the state, with no loss in crop yields. 

These programs were the foundation for Iowa s receiving the EPA Administrator s Pollution Prevention 

Award in 1992. 
Stakeholders:

Clayton County Soil and Water Conservation 

District Farmers 

Iowa Chemical and Fertilizer Dealers Association 

Iowa Consortium on Agriculture and Water Quality 

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Iowa State University Extension 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

USDA Farm Service Agency 

University of Iowa 

Contact:

Dr. George Hallberg

University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory

102 Oakdale Campus #H101 OH

Iowa City, IA 52242

(319) 335-4500

FAX: (319) 335-4555

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Centerville Reservoirs Project

Size and location: The upper and lower Centerville reservoirs are man-made (in-line) lakes located in 

Appanoose County, in southern Iowa. These lakes have a combined surface area of 53 hectares (131 
acres). The total watershed of the lakes is 1050 hectares (2599 acres). The reservoirs are the primary 

source of raw drinking water for the community of Centerville (population 6000). The reservoirs and the 

adjoining 104-hectare county park also provide wildlife habitat and are a source of recreation for local 

residents. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded 319(h) grant funds (FY92 $189,165) to support the 

project coordinator, public information/ education program on agricultural NPS control, tech transfer 

activities, and selected financial incentives for BMP implementations and demonstrations. 

Organization that initiated project:

Appanoose County Soil and Water Conservation District 

Major environmental problems:

● The nonpoint pollution affecting the reservoirs includes sediment that reduces the lake volume, 

causes increased treatment and repair costs at the water treatment plant, and impairs recreational 

use of the lakes. 

● Also, nutrients from cropland runoff cause algal blooms that impair the lakes' fisheries. 

● Elevated pesticide levels have also been found in the reservoirs (at times exceeding EPA drinking 

water standards) and are not readily removed by conventional water treatment. 

Actions taken or proposed: Initiated in FY92, the project is scheduled to be implemented over 3 years. 

The objectives of the project are to improve and protect the reservoirs by the implementation of best 

management practices (BMPs) to reduce sediment, nutrient, and pesticide levels. These BMPs include 

converting critical land from crop production to permanent vegetative cover, constructing sediment 

retention basins and wetlands above the reservoirs, conservation tillage, grassed field borders, waterways 

and filter strips, and nutrient and pesticide management. Concurrently, the project will address septic 

tanks and related urban pollution sources in the watershed. 

Stakeholders:

Appanoose County Conservation Board 

Appanoose County Health Office 

Appanose County Soil and Water Conservation District 

Centerville Chamber of Commerce 

Centerville Municipal Water Works 
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Iowa State University Extension Service 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USDA Farm Service Agency 

Contact Person:

Ubbo Agena

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Wallace State Office Building

Des Moines, IA 50319

(515) 281-6402

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Cheyenne Bottoms Wetland Project

Size and location: The project is located in Barton County, Kansas, and covers approximately 24,240 

hectares (60,000 acres). 
Nature of EPA involvement: Cooperative Agreement CR-823025, Kansas State University, Principal 

Investigator James Koelliker, Project Period: 10/01/94-09/30/97, Total Budget: $225,- 962; EPA 

Contribution: $65,823. Project Officer, Stephen Kraemer, USEPA/RSKERL-Ada. 

The Project Officer has an In-house Research Project supporting this effort, including an on-site 

contractor work assignment. Liason: Cathy Tortorici, USEPA Region VII. 

Organization that initiated project: U.S. Department of Agriculture Region VII contacted U.S. EPA 

Office of Research and Development/ Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL)-

Ada through the RARE program. 

Major environmental problems:

● Cheyenne Bottoms is a wetland of international importance, being a critical stopover point for 

more than half of the population of northward-migrating shorebirds of North America and a 

habitat for numerous species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, and plants. 

● Six species on the federal endangered and threatened species list regularly use the Bottoms: 

whooping crane, piping plover, snowy plover, least tern, peregrine falcon, and bald eagle. 

● The Cheyenne Bottoms is the one of the last of the major wetland systems left in the State of 

Kansas, and the maintenance of standing water is critical for habitat function. The natural water 

supply needs to be supplemented with diversions from neighboring watersheds (Wet Walnut 

Creek, Dry Walnut Creek, Pawnee) and from the Arkansas River. These sources of water are 

under increasing pressure from agricultural and municipal demands, and a deficit situation exists. 

● Also, existing and proposed flood control structures within the Wet Walnut Creek and Pawnee 

watersheds are potentially altering the available water supply to the Bottoms. 

Actions taken or proposed: A detailed hydrological budget model has been proposed. The modeling 

study will be comprehensive, including both ground water and surface water, and continuous in time, 

simulating transient watershed responses. The impact of irrigation wells and flood control structures 

within the watersheds will be investigated through scenario testing. A research report will be prepared by 

September 1997. 

Stakeholders:

Citizens within the watersheds 

State of Kansas (Kansas Wildlife and Parks, Kansas Water Office, Division of Water Resources, Board 

of Agriculture) 

The Nature Conservancy 
U.S. Army Crops of Engineers 

U.S. EPA 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Contact:

Stephen R. Kraemer

USEPA/RSKERL

POB 1198

Ada, OK 74821

(405) 436-8549

FAX: (405) 436-8703

E-mail: kraemer@ad3100.ada.epa.gov

ALL-IN-ONE: epa8029 or kraemer.stephen

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Clear Lake

Size and location: The Clear Lake watershed covers an 3500-hectare (8700-acre) area located in Cerro 

Gordo County in north-central Iowa. 
Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded 319(h) grant funds (FY94 $227,896) to support the 

project coordinator, public information/education program on urban and agricultural NPS control, tech 

transfer activities, and selected financial incentives for best management practice (BMP) implementation 

and demonstration. 

Organization that initiated project:

Cerro Gordo Soil and Water Conservation District 

Major environmental problems:

● Nutrients, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus 

● High turbidity 

● Low water clarity 

● Algal blooms 

● Impaired fishery 

● Inhibited recreational use 

● Runoff from urban areas and cropland 

Actions taken or proposed: This 3-year project was initiated with Fiscal Year 1994 Clean Water Act 

Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management funds. The project will address both urban and agricultural 

nonpoint source water pollution through household and agricultural campaigns that consist of 

demonstrations and education efforts, technical assistance, and financial incentives for best management 

practice implementation. The urban campaign includes reducing nutrient impacts at the business and 

residential level as well as a volunteer water quality monitoring program. The agricultural campaign 

includes wetlands development, nutrient and pest management, and both structural and nonstructural 

practices in the watershed. Specific goals are to reduce urban phosphorus and nitrogen inputs by 70 

percent and 50 percent, respectively; to reduce or eliminate algal blooms; and to improve water clarity by 

reducing phytoplankton levels. 

Stakeholders:

Cerro Gordo County Health Department 

Cerro Gordo County Soil and Water Conservation District 

Cerro Gordo County Solid Waste Agency 

Clear Lake Economic Development Corporation 

Clear Lake Sanitary District 
Ducks Unlimited 

Hancock County Soil and Water Conservation District 

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Northern Iowa Area Community College 

Pheasants Forever 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contact:

Ubbo Agena

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Wallace State Office Building

Des Moines, IA 50319

(515) 281-6402

FAX: (515) 281-8895

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Eastern Nebraska Saline Wetlands

Size and location: This project covers 2280 hectares (5644 acres) of wetlands and deepwater habitats in 

Lancaster and southern Saunders Counties, Nebraska. 
Nature of EPA involvement: Awarded two grants (1989 and 1990) to state for resource inventory and 

public outreach projects; participating on interagency assessment team with Corps of Engineers (ACE), 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC), and Nebraska 

Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) to conduct an advanced planning project. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Original work initiated by EPA and NGPC 

Major environmental problems: The saline wetlands are considered one of the most restricted and 

imperiled natural community types in the state. They harbor holophytic plants considered rare in state. 

These wetlands provide (1) habitat for more than half of the total number of bird species in state, 

including migratory shorebirds and (2) the sole habitat for an endemic tiger beetle (Cicindela nevadica 

var. lincolniana). 

These wetlands continue to be threatened by commercial and residential development pressures from the 

city of Lincoln, road construction, and the potential for agricultural development. 

Actions taken or proposed: The first grant resulted in a report entitled An Inventory and General 

Assessment of Eastern Nebraska Saline Wetlands in Lancaster and Southern Saunders Countries. The 

second grant resulted in the development of outreach materials, including a narrated slide presentation, 

color brochure, and color poster. Recent interagency efforts have resulted in the development of a report 

entitled Resource Categorization of Nebraska's Eastern Saline Wetlands and associated geographic 

information system (GIS)-based inventory maps, which have been incorporated and approved as part of 

the Lincoln-Lancaster County 5-Year Comprehensive Development Plan. Finalization of a report entitled 

Mitigation Guidelines for Nebraska's Eastern Saline Wetlands is pending. The latter will include 

guidance for developing saline wetlands mitigation banks. 

Stakeholders:

Lower Platte South Natural Resources District 

Lincoln-Lancaster County Planning Department 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Nebraska Natural Resources Commission 

Lincoln Board of Realtors, Inc. 

ACE 
NGPC 

NDEQ 

FWS 

Contact:

Tom Taylor

Nebraska State Wetlands Coordinator

U.S. EPA Region VII Environmental Review Branch/ENRV

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, KS 66101

(913) 551-7226

FAX: (913) 551-7863

E-mail: taylor.tom@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Elm Creek

Size and location: The Elm Creek watershed covers a 14,460-hectare (35,800-acre) area located in 

Webster County in south-central Nebraska. 
Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded section 319(h) grant funds to accomplish key parts 

(monitoring, information/education, and targeting of innovative best management practices (BMPs) in 

critical areas) of this larger holistic watershed project. Elm Creek is a National Nonpoint Source 

Watershed Projects Monitoring Program site. 

Organization that initiated project:

Lower Republican Natural Resource District 

Major environmental problems:

● Nonpoint source pollution in the form of instream sedimentation affecting cold-water fishery 

● Erosion from near-stream gullies/overfalls, upland areas of cropland and pasture, irrigation return 

flows, and livestock access 

● Streambank erosion 

Actions taken or proposed: Elm Creek is a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Hydrologic Unit 

Area project and is one of EPA s National Monitoring Program Projects under section 319 of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). A small amount of USDA Water Quality Incentive Program funding has also been 

devoted to the project area. 

The objectives of the project are to: 

● Identify and target critical areas of nonpoint source pollutant loading contributing to impairment 

of beneficial uses. 

● Implement demonstrable land treatment practices that are "cost-effective" and can functionally 

reduce sediment loading to Elm Creek by 50 percent. 

● Facilitate a nonpoint source public education effort within the project area. 

● Conduct water quality monitoring; and integrate CWA section 319 funding/activities with other 

funding/activities in the watershed to provide a holistic watershed management project for water 

quality protection. 

● Practices being employed include nutrient and pest management, grazing management, cattle 

exclusion from the streams, and stream bank restoration. 

Stakeholders:

Lower Republican Natural Resources District 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

University of Nebraska Extension 

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Contact:

Dave Jensen

Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 98922

Statehouse Station

Lincoln, NE 68509-8922

(402) 471-3196

FAX: (402) 471-2909

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Hillsdale Reservoir

Size and location: Hillsdale Reservoir is a 1850-hectare (4580-acre) Corps of Engineers impoundment 

located in Kansas 48 kilometers (30 miles) southwest of Kansas City, Kansas. Its watershed covers 
37,240 hectares (92,180 acres). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) mini-grant and 

319(h) funding for the Hillsdale Watershed Protection project, as well as water quality monitoring and 

laboratory support. An EPA staff position participates (with the local project manager and 

information/education coordinator) as a member of the project implementation team by providing 

technical and programmatic support. EPA has served as a catalyst to bring other state, federal, and local 

agencies into the project. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Citizens Management Committee 

Lakes District Research Conservation and Development District 

Major environmental problems:

● Nutrient overload and associated eutrophication effects from both point and nonpoint sources 

● Minor threat from atrazine 

Actions taken or proposed: A nutrient total maximum daily load has been developed. A local association 

of concerned citizens and agencies, together with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and 

EPA staff support, is implementing a watershed management program using Clean Water Act section 

319, U.S. Department of Agriculture Water Quality Incentives Program, and state funding to control 

animal waste and cropland nutrient sources and to protect the recreational and drinking water supply 

benefits of the reservoir. 

Stakeholders:

Association of citizens and agencies 

Citizens Management Committee 

Johnson County Environmental Department 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

Lakes District Resources Conservation and Development District 

Rural Water Districts 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Contact:

Thomas Lorenz

U.S. EPA Region VII

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, KS 66101 

(913) 551-7292

FAX: (913) 551-7765

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Iowa Great Lakes

Size and location: The Iowa Great Lakes consist of a 25,600-hectare (64,000-acre) watershed in 

Dickinson County in northern Iowa. 
Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided project funding through 104(b)3 (FY89 $9,000) and 

319(h) grant funds (FY90 $50,000; FY92 $100,860; FY94 $44,860; FY95 $128,430) to support the 

project coordinator, public information/education program on urban and agricultural NPS control, 

wetlands protection and restoration, and selected financial incentives for BMP implementations and 

demonstration. 

Organization that initiated project:

Dickinson County Soil and Water Conservation District 

Major environmental problems:

● Sediment 

● Nutrient runoff from both rural and urban lands threatening 14 natural lakes 

Actions taken or proposed: This 5-year project was initiated with fiscal year 1990 Clean Water Act 

section 319 funds and has also received funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm 

Service Agency through the Agricultural Conservation Program, the Iowa Resource Enhancement and 

Protection Program, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The purpose of the project is to reduce the 

amount of sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and animal wastes entering the numerous lakes in the 

watershed. Efforts are being focused on avoiding unnecessary or excessive nutrient applications, 

especially phosphorus; assisting with practices that reduce water running off cropland; showing 

lakeshore landowners how they can better manage their property to protect water quality; and using 

wetland restoration and critical slope protection programs. 

In the 2 years since the project was initiated, about 32 hectares (80 acres) of wetlands in critical drainage 

areas have been improved, restored, or protected. These wetlands act as filters to stop pollution before it 

enters the lakes. New areas of trees and grasslands have been established on 31 hectares (78 acres) in the 

watershed; project workers have made site visits with a total of 83 of the 185 watershed landowners to 

discuss water quality; and landowners throughout the watershed, including urban residents, have gained 

an awareness of water quality through the project s education program. 

One-third of the watershed is in Minnesota, and a cooperative effort occurs across state boundaries. Plans 

are also under way to apply for similar project funding for the Minnesota side of the watershed. 

Stakeholders:

Dickinson County Soil and Water Conservation District 

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 
Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation 

Iowa State University Extension 

Local lake protective associations 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDA Farm Service Agency 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Contact:

Ubbo Agena

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Wallace State Office Building

Des Moines, IA 50319

(515) 281-6402

FAX: (515) 281-8895

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

Wetland Conservation Plan
Size and location: 1120-kilometer (700 miles) stretch from Cairo, Illinois south to the Gulf of Mexico; 

historical alluvial plain of the Mississippi River. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Currently, providing funding assistance to multiple state agencies within 

the Lower Mississippi Valley, as well as federal interagency projects addressing forestry and resource 

planning issues. EPA and several regional sponsors will be coordinating the development of a regional 

wetlands conservation plan. 

Organizations that initiated project: Multiple federal agencies, including EPA, U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), National Biological Survey (NBS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are initiating ecosystem-scale planning and research efforts in the 

region. 

Major environmental problems: Nonpoint source pollution in surface waters, extensive forested 

wetlands loss, impacted fisheries and wildlife habitats, extensive hydrological modifications. 

Actions taken or proposed: This multistate, multiregion initiative focuses on wetland 

restoration/reforestation and reduction of nonpoint source water pollution throughout the Lower 

Mississippi River Alluvial Plain. A regional sponsor will coordinate state and federal efforts by 

developing and implementing a regional wetlands conservation plan. Establishing networks among 

interest groups and data sharing through the use of a geographic information system will be emphasized, 

as well as prioritization of wetland restoration/acquisition sites. 

Stakeholders:

Natural resource state agencies from MS, LA, TN, AR, KY, MO, and IL, agricultural community, 

forestry community, landowners, hunting and outdoor recreation groups, environmental organizations, 

sustainable economy organizations, federal natural resource and public health agencies, including EPA, 

National Biological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

U.S. Geological Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Agency for Toxic substances and Disease Registry. 

Contact:

Jennifer Derby/Eric Hughes

EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30365

(404) 347-3871 ext. 6510 and ext. 6517

Beverly Ethridge/Jay Gamble/Jack Hill

EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(214) 665-2263

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Meramec River

Size and location: The Meramec River mean- ders some 350 kilometers (220 miles) through six 

Missouri Ozark Highland counties Dent, Phelps, Crawford, Franklin, Jefferson, and St. Louis before it 
empties into the Mississippi River. Between the mouth and its source, it falls 313 meters (1,025 feet). 

The Meramec watershed covers portions of eight additional counties - Maries, Gasconade, Iron, 

Washington, Reynolds, St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve, and Texas - totaling approximately 10,300 square 

kilometers (3,980 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA, through a cooperative agreement with the Missouri Depart- ment of 

Conservation, is providing technical assistance as well as a State Wetland Protection Development Grant. 

EPA will also be assisting in future planning efforts in the watershed. 

Organization the initiated project:

Missouri Department of Conservation 

Major environmental problems:

● Sand and gravel dredging operation impacts 

● Developmental pressures 

● Increased agricultural and livestock production 

● Nonpoint source pollution 

● Point source pollution 

● Threats to water quality and drinking water supply 

● Flooding 

● Impaired aquatic diversity (including federally and state threatened and endangered species) due 

to habitat loss and water quality degradation 

● Riparian corridor destruction 

● Wetland loss 

Actions taken or proposed: The Missouri Department of Conservation under a State Wetland Protection 

Development Grant from EPA will coordinate scientific information with stakeholders to develop a 

watershed plan for the Meramec basin through the following measures: 

● Provide scientific information on physiography, geology, hydrology, geomorphology, land usage, 

Clean Water Act section 404 jurisdiction (stream and wetland), structural influences, water quality, fish 

contamination, habitat conditions, community sampling of fish and invertebrates, and locations of 

threatened and endangered species. 

● Provide data in geographic information system form. 

● Identify basin problems and potential solutions. 

● Prepare a basin-specific, dynamic plan to aid managers in addressing management, coordination, and 

information needs to integrate wetland protection and management into a watershed context. 

● Identify potential sociopolitical partnerships needed to implement improvement programs. 

Stakeholders:
Citizen groups 

Landowners 

Local governments 

Missouri Department of Conservation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

Missouri Stream Teams 

Private organizations 

Regional planning groups 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Contact:

Kathleen Mulder

U.S. EPA Region VII

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, KS 66101

(913) 551-7542

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Mississippi River Gateway Project

Size and location: The project area encompasses three counties in Illinois (Madison and St. Clair) and 

Missouri (St. Louis). The project focuses mainly on the western portions of Madison and St. Clair 
Counties of Illinois at the present time. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has been involved with the local community as well as with federal, 

state, and local agencies to address the human health and environmental problems associated with 

hazardous and solid wastes, flooding, chemical disposal, and lead contamination in the community. 

These problems are being addressed through pollution prevention efforts, cleanup of trash and waste 

associated with the lack of garbage pick-up, and compliance assistance/enforcement programs. Concerns 

related to environmental justice are being addressed by working with the local community leaders. EPA 

is also initiating efforts with local environmental groups to begin restoring lost or degraded habitats and 

providing environmental education. 

Organization that initiated project: This effort was begun by EPA Region V but is supported by EPA 

Region VII, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Missouri Department of Health, and the Illinois Department of Public Health. 

Major environmental problems: The major environmental problems are listed above. Some of these are 

related to the economic situation of the community. East St. Louis, Illinois, had lost much of its tax base 

and was unable to provide some of the basic services to its residents, e.g., garbage pickup, adequate 

wastewater treatment, safe housing, etc. By working with the other agencies, EPA has begun to address 

the community's needs. 

Actions taken or proposed: Pollution prevention activities have begun to be implemented in the Greater 

St. Louis area to achieve reductions in pollutants of greatest risk. For instance, an effort has been 

undertaken to reduce human exposure to environmental and household lead. EPA is in the process of 

determining whether minority or low-income populations in the initiative area are disproportionatly 

exposed to hazardous waste, hazardous substances or other hazardous activities. EPA is working to 

develop a community-based public involvement program that encourages dialogue among governments, 

industry, community groups, and others. EPA is also developing a program to address the issue of lost 

and degraded habitats and the use of high quality habitats in environmental education. 

Stakeholders: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Illinois Department of Public Health, Missouri 

Department of Health, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, EPA Regions V and VII, 

local community groups and local industry. EPA expects that as the initiative grows, additional agencies 

will assist in this project. 

Contacts:

Linda Hamsing (Karen Lumino)

EPA Region V

(312) 886-0981

Doug Elders
EPA Region VII

(913) 551-7393

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Omaha Stretch of the Missouri River

Size and location: The Omaha Stretch of the Missouri River corridor extends approximately 69 

kilometers (43 miles) from north to south, from the Washington-Burt County, Nebraska, line to the 
mouth of the Platte River. 

Nature of the EPA involvement: EPA is a new member of the growing partnership. Media programs are 

focusing on water, waste, air, and pesticide issues. The Great Plains Program has designated the Omaha 

Stretch as one of its laboratories for place-based management. EPA is also participating in studies at two 

wetland sites and sponsoring environmental education programs. 

Organization that initiated project:

The Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District of Nebraska 

Major environmental problems: The Missouri River ecosystem has historically suffered major changes 

and dramatic losses. In the Omaha Stretch, forests and wildlife have been harvested and settlements have 

covered the valley. The once braided and meandering river has been channelized and confined to a 

single, deep navigation canal. With levees and dams, its hydrologic cycle, including natural flooding, has 

nearly been eliminated. Wetlands and diverse kinds of fishery habitat have been lost, and lands continue 

to be converted from forests and wetlands to cropland and residential areas. The City of Omaha is a 

major industrial center with many discharges to water, air, and land, all of which have led to human 

health concerns and ecological stress. Agriculture in the region contributes nonpoint source runoff high 

in nutrients and pesticides. 

Actions taken or proposed: Through the cooperative efforts of federal, state, and private organizations, 

projects are currently under way to restore various ecological components as well as encourage 

sustainable development. The City of Omaha has developed revitalization plans to improve access to the 

river, to build a trail system for bicycling and walking through Omaha, and to improve the waterfront and 

municipal parks. Also under way are an environmental education program to increase student and 

community awareness of the Missouri River ecosystem and a "Back to the River" outreach campaign to 

encourage citizens to explore the river for its beauty, history, and ecological importance. 

Stakeholders:

Fontanelle Forest Assoc. 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Iowa County Conservation Boards 

National Audubon Society 

National Park Service 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 
Nebraska Department of Economic Development 

Nebraska Natural Resources Commission 

Missouri River Preservation Authority 

Omaha and Winnebago Tribes of Nebraska 

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 

U.S. EPA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contact person:

Kerry B. Herndon

Great Plains Program Office

EPA Region VII

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, KA 66101

(913) 551-7286

FAX: (913) 551-7956

E-mail: herndon.kerry@epamail.epa.gov 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Papio Lakes Project

Size and location: The Papio Lakes Project encompasses five lake watersheds located in and around 

Omaha, Nebraska. The five lakes are Glen Cunningham (158 hectares/390 acres), Standing Bear (55 
hectares/135 acres), Wehrspann (99 hectares/245 acres), Zorinsky (102 hectares/253 acres), and Summit 

(77 hectares/190 acres). The total drainage area for the five lakes encompasses 16,282 hectares (40,301 

acres). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has been involved in this project since 1989 when all five lakes were 

funded under the federal Clean Lakes Program. Continued involvement has come through the federal 

Nonpoint Source Management Program. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District 

City of Omaha 

Major environmental problem: Excessive sedimentation and nutrient loading stemming from 

agricultural and construction activities. Associated problems such as poor water clarity and habitat loss 

are impacting aesthetics and aquatic life. 

Actions taken or proposed: The project sponsor is utilizing a combination of federal, state, and local 

funding and expertise to address the problems. Section 314 and 319 funding, in addition to local funding, 

has been approved for the design and construction of wetlands. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

funding through the Water Quality Incentives Program has been approved for treatment practices on 

agricultural lands. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln Cooperative Extension Service, Papio-Missouri 

River NRD, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, and EPA have entered into a joint venture 

to provide an extension educator for the project. Local Planning Agencies are developing strategies to 

reduce construction site impacts. 

The objectives of the project are to: 

● (1) Reduce lake sedimentation rates to less than 0.3 percent of the initial lake volume per year. 

● (2) Improve and maintain summer water clarity measurements to depths greater than 0.75 meter. 

● (3) Maintain summer chlorophyll a concentrations at levels less than 33 mg/1. 

Stakeholders:

City of Gretna 

City of Omaha 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 
Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District 

University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service 

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Contact:

Gary Bowen

Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District

8901 S. 154th Street

Omaha, NE 68138-3621

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Pine Creek

Size and location: The Pine Creek watershed covers 3910 hectares (9,680 acres) in Hardin and Grundy 

Counties in north-central Iowa. Upper and Lower Pine Lakes are the feature waterbodies of Pine Lakes 
State Park. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded 314 Phase I and II Clean Lakes Program and 319(h) 

grant funds. The 319 funds (FY92 $207,891) support the project coordinator, public 

information/education program on agricultural NPS control, tech transfer activities, and selected 

financial incentives for best management practice (BMP) implementation and demonstration. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Hardin and Grundy County Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Major environmental problems:

● Sediment and nutrients from eroding croplands 

● Frequent algal blooms 

● Impaired fisheries 

● Degraded aquatic habitat 

● Reduced recreational use 

● Animal waste 

● Stream bank erosion 

Actions taken or proposed: Iowa received a Clean Lakes Program grant in 1989 to conduct a Phase I 

diagnostic/feasibility study for Upper and Lower Pine Lakes and the surrounding watershed. This study 

provided the basis for this 3-year water quality protection project. Watershed measures are being carried 

out using funds from Clean Water Act section 319 Nonpoint Source Program, USDA Farm Services 

Agency and the State's Resource Enhancement and Protection Programs. Restoration of the lakes is being 

carried out using Clean Lakes Program Phase II funding awarded in 1992. The objectives of the project 

include: 

● Implementing BMPs, on a priority basis, to reduce sediment and nutrient loads to Upper and 

Lower Pine Lakes by 60 percent. 

● Implementing BMPs on 1,200 hectares (3,000 acres) in the watershed per year. 

● Increasing the area of warm season grasses in the watershed by 100 percent. 

● Holding farmer-to-farmer meetings to facilitate technology transfer to land-owners and operators 

in the watershed. 

● Demonstrating and promoting the economic feasibility of BMPs to the local community and 

public at large. 

Currently, about 30 producers are participating in the project, which is designed to encourage local 

producers to implement comprehensive resource management systems to control erosion, reduce 

pesticide and fertilizer use, and better protect stream banks. Activities include wildlife habitat 

management, pasture management, animal waste management, livestock exclusion, stream bank 

stabilization, filter strips, critical area plantings, integrated crop management, and others. 
Stakeholders:

Grundy County Soil and Water Conservation District 

Hardin Soil and Water Conservation District 

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Iowa State University Extension 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Contact:

Ubbo Agena 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Wallace State Office Building

Des Moines, IA 50319

(515) 281-6402

FAX: (515) 281-8895

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Platte River

Size and location: Originating in the mountains of Colorado and Wyoming, the Platte River watershed 

drains two-thirds of the state of Nebraska. Ground water is an important part of this ecosystem. 
Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has served as a catalyst and facilitator for the Platte Watershed 

Program. EPA has devoted staff to program coordination, assessments, and outreach for this area, Region 

VII's major large-scale watershed approach project and a priority "place" under the Great Plains 

Program. Funding from various sources has been focused on investigation and implementation activities 

in the Platte watershed. The Middle Platte wetlands watershed is also a national case study site for 

conducting watershed-scale, multiple-stressor ecological risk assessments and a national pilot area for 

wetlands biocriteria development. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) 

Major environmental problems:

● Nonpoint sources of pollution 

● Nitrate and pesticide contamination 

● Habitat destruction and alteration 

● Hydrologic modification 

● Flood plain development 

Actions taken or proposed: The Platte Watershed Program is a partnership to protect and enhance the 

ecosystem of the Platte River and its alluvial aquifer in Nebraska. This ecosystem serves as a vital link in 

the Central Flyway migratory bird route; sustains a rich diversity of plant and animal life, including 

threatened and endangered species; and support an economy based on rich agricultural production. The 

Platte River alluvial aquifer provides drinking water to two-thirds of Nebraska's citizens. The Platte 

River also supports multiple uses including recreation, aquatic life and wildlife, irrigation, industrial 

water supply, and hydropower generation. 

EPA has been working with the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ), the University 

of Nebraska, and other partners to develop a comprehensive ecosystem approach to the Platte River 

Basin that prevents pollution and maintains a healthy, sustainable ecosystem which provides for the 

health and welfare of humans as well as other living things. 

The strategy is to build state and local capacity to protect the ecosystem by organizing partnerships and 

involving stakeholders in cooperative assessment and action. The Platte Watershed Program is using a 

two-pronged approach to meet its goal: (1) coordinating and focusing activities basinwide and (2) 

involving stakeholders in assessing problems and developing action plans by subbasin. 

EPA is working in coordination with NDEQ's newly adopted Basin Management Approach to compile 

and assess existing water quality and pollutant source data for each of the six Platte River sub-basins in 
Nebraska. This information will support NDEQ's development of water quality monitoring project plans 

and basin management plans for each sub-basin. Involvement of parties most affected by management 

decisions (federal, state, and local stakeholders, as appropriate) in monitoring, identifying problems, 

setting environmental goals, and measuring success will be crucial to development of these basin 

management plans. 

For the Middle Platte sub-basin, the assessment will also includes ecological data. The Middle Platte subbasin was selected by EPA in 1993 as one of five national case study sites to develop the procedures for 

conducting multiple-stressor, watershed-level ecological risk assessments. The purpose of the case 

studies is to develop a scientific process that increases understanding of how ecological resources within 

watersheds respond to a combination of human activities. By comparing the five case studies, EPA hopes 

to identify the principles of watershed risk assessment and develop guidance on how to perform such 

assessments. The Middle Platte case study is intended to demonstrate how a watershed approach 

incorporating ecological response assessment might be used by stakeholders in planning for a sustainable 

future. The Middle Platte case study is being conducted by a workgroup consisting of technical 

representatives from U.S. EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The 

Nature Conservancy, the University of Nebraska, and participants from 10 state and local natural 

resource agencies and organizations in Nebraska. 

Building on the Middle Platte ecological response assessment case study, the Platte Watershed Program 

is serving as a pilot area for developing wetlands biocriteria, using environmental indicators to measure 

progress, and understanding landscape structure in relation to ecosystem function. An economic analysis 

is also being planned as a companion project to the ecological response assessment. Together, the 

ecological and economic analyses will provide information for resource managers to use in evaluating 

management options and identifying those which maximize ecological protection while maintaining a 

viable economy. 

Outreach and education are important components of the Platte Watershed Program as well. Through the 

Summer Orientation About Rivers (SOAR) Program of the Prairie Plains Resources Institute, students 

experience first-hand the relationship between the quality of the natural resource base and the quality of 

their lives. Scientists and natural resource managers share information and discuss issues related to the 

Platte watershed during the annual Platte Basin Ecosystem Symposium. Cooperative Extension 

Specialists at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln help form partnerships, facilitate stakeholder 

involvement, and conduct outreach and educational activities. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural, Environmental, Business, and Community Groups 

Municipalities 

Nebraska Natural Resource Districts 
Nebraska Department of Agriculture 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 

Nebraska Natural Resources Commission 

Nebraska Water Resources Commission 

Platte River Whooping Crane Habitat Maintenance Trust 

Prairie Plains Resource Institute Bureau of Reclamation 

The Nature Conservancy 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Utilities (power and irrigation) 

Contact:

Donna F. Sefton

U.S. EPA Region VII

726 Minnesota Avenue

Kansas City, KS 66101

(913) 551-7500

FAX: (913) 551-7765

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Salt Valley Lakes Project

Size and location: The Salt Valley Lakes Project encompasses five lake watersheds located in and 

around Lincoln, Nebraska. The five lakes are Wildwood (42 hectares/103 acres), Branched Oak (727 
hectares/1800 acres), Pawnee (299 hectares/740 acres), Holmes (40 hectares/100 acres), and Meadowlark 

(22 hectares/55 acres). The total drainage area for the five lakes encompasses 37,092 hectares (91,811 

acres). 

Nature of the EPA involvement: EPA has been involved in this project since 1989 when all five lakes 

were funded under the federal Clean Lakes Program. Continued involvement has come through the 

federal Nonpoint Source Management Program. 

Organization that initiated project:

Lower Platte South Natural Resources District (LPSNRD) 

Major environmental problems: Excessive sedimentation and nutrient loading stemming from 

agricultural and construction activities. Associated problems such as poor water clarity and habitat loss 

are impacting aesthetics and aquatic life. 

Actions taken or proposed: The LPSNRD is utilizing a combination of federal, state, and local funding 

and expertise to address the identified problems. Two lakes (Wildwood and Holmes) have been approved 

by EPA for funding under the Nonpoint Source Management Program. Funding will be used for 

information/education, treatment on agricultural lands, and for the renovation and construction of 

sediment/nutrient traps and wetlands. Local funding combined with section 205(j)(5) funding from EPA 

was used to renovate Meadowlark Lake, which included dredging and the development of a wetland 

area. Section 104(b),(c) funding will be combined with local and state funding to conduct a total 

maximum daily load study on Holmes Lake. The LPSNRD has established a cost-share program for 

urban best management practices. The LPSNRD, University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service, 

EPA, and Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality have entered into a joint venture to provide an 

extension educator for the project. 

The objectives of the project are to: 

● (1) Reduce and maintain lake sedimentation rates to less than 0.3 percent of the initial lake 

volume per year. 

● (2) Improve and maintain summer water clarity measurements to depths greater than 0.75 meters. 

● (3) Maintain summer chlorophyll a concentrations at levels less than 33mg/l. 

Stakeholders:

Lower Platte South Natural Resources District 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

Nebraska Nurseries 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service 

Contact:

Paul Zillig

Lower Platte South Natural Resources District

3125 Portia Street

P.O. Box 83581

Lincoln, NE 68501-3581

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Storm Lake Project

Size and location: Storm Lake is located in Buena Vista County in Northwestern Iowa. The lake is a 

1244-hectare (3080-acre) natural glacial lake. The watershed is 7098 hectare (17,570-acre) and is drained 
by Powell Creek which feeds into a 73-hectare (180-acre) wetland known as Little Storm Lake before 

entering Storm Lake proper. The communities of Storm Lake (pop. 9000) and Alta (population 1720) are 

located within the watershed. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded 319(h) grant funds (FY93) $204,445) to support the 

project coordinator, public information/ education program on agricultural NPS control, tech transfer 

activities, and selected financial incentives for BMP implementations and demonstrations. 

Organization that initiated project:

Buena Vista Boil and Water Conservation District 

Major environment problems: The environmental problems affecting Storm Lake include sediment that 

reduces lake volume, nutrients and pesticides from both agricultural and urban landuse practices, waste 

runoff from animal feeding operations, and illegal wastewater hook-ups to the Storm Lake storm water 

system. These sources of nutrients cause repeated algal blooms that impair lake fisheries and other 

recreational uses. 

Actions taken or proposed: Initiated in FY93, the project is scheduled to be implemented over three 

years. The objectives of the project are to reduce sedimentation, and nutrient and pesticide pollution of 

Storm lake from both agricultural and urban sources. This will be accomplished through total farm 

ecosystem based planning and application of structural and management best management practices that 

include conservation tillage, contour farming, terraces, grassed waterways, filter strips, pasture and 

hayland management, critical area planting, wildlife and upland habitat, animal waste management 

systems and a "priority area" application of nutrient and pesticide management to acres identified as 

having the greatest impact on lake water quality. The project is coordinating activities with the ongoing 

Storm Lake Demonstration Project sponsored by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture that was 

initiated in 1990 and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Phase One Clean Lakes study. These 

projects are monitoring water quality changes in Storm Lake. The project will also work in concert with a 

riparian tree buffer strip demonstration project being conducted by Iowa State University and supported 

with FY93 section 319 funds. The riparian area is located along a 1-mile reach of Powell Creek in the 

Storm Lake watershed. 

Stakeholders:

Buena Vista County Board of Health 

City of Storm Lake 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation 
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture 

Storm Lake Preservation Association 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

USDA Farm Service Agency 

Contact:

Ubbo Agena

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Wallace State Office building 

Des Moines, IA 50319

(515) 281-6402

FAX: (515) 281-8895

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Upper Big Mill Creek

Size and location: The Upper Big Mill Creek watershed encompasses 3219 hectares (7967 acres) and is 

located in Jackson County in East-Central Iowa. Big Mill Creek is one of the state's highest quality cold-
water streams and one of only six streams in Iowa that support a naturally reproducing population of 

brown trout. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded 319(h) grant funds (FY93 $113,394) to support the 

project coordinator, public information/ education program on agricultural nonpoint source (NPS) 

control, tech transfer activities, and selected financial incentives for best management practice (BMP) 

implementation and demonstration. 

Organization that initiated project:

Jackson County Soil and Water Conservation District 

Major environmental problems: The largest environmental problem affecting the water quality of Big 

Mill Creek is sediment from stream bank erosion and from the erosion of 1280 hectares (3,200 acres) of 

cropland in the watershed that have also been identified as Highly Erodible Land (HEL). Sediment 

covers the natural, rocky substrate and reduces the habitat of fish and macroinvertebrates. Nutrients and 

pesticides from cropland and livestock waste are considered secondary water quality concerns. In 

addition, sinkholes and springs in the watershed need to be protected. 

Actions taken or proposed: Initiated in FY93, the project is scheduled to be implemented over 3 years. 

The purpose of the project is to implement BMPs in the Big Mill watershed that improve water quality 

by reducing soil erosion on crop and pasture land, improving nutrient and pesticide management, and 

reducing bank erosion, and improve stream conditions, reduce bank erosion, and improve in-stream and 

riparian habitat. The BMPs that will be demonstrated are sediment control basins, crop rotation, 

contouring, conservation tillage, sinkhole management, improved livestock waste practices, stream 

corridor protection, alternative watering systems, and improved nutrient and pesticide management. The 

objectives of the project are to reduce sedimentation by 60 percent, reduce livestock waste reaching the 

stream by 50 percent, reduce fertilizer and pesticide application by 20 percent from current levels, and 

develop a public information and education program to inform local producers about crop/livestock 

BMPs and stream corridor habitat protection practices. 

Stakeholders:

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship/ Division of Soil Conservation 

Iowa State University Extension 

Izaak Walton League (Maquokets Chapter) 

Jackson County Conservation Board 
Jackson County Soil and Water Conservation District 

The University of Dubuque 

USDA Farm Service Agency 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Contact:

Ubbo Agena

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Wallace State Office Building

Des Moines, IA 50319

(515) 281-6402

FAX: (515) 218-8895

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Upper Niangua River Watershed

Size and location: The Upper Niangua River basin has an area of 95,000 hectares (236,000 acres) and is 

located in south-central Missouri. 
Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded 205(j)(5) and 319(h) grant funds ($365,654). The project 

is a candidate for the National Nonpoint Source (NPS) Watershed Projects Monitoring Program. EPA 

and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have partnered with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide funding for long-term 

monitoring in connection with a Hydrologic Unit Area project targeted at the excess nutrient load in the 

Niangua River. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Major environmental problems:

● Excessive nutrients 

● Excessive bacteria in surface and groundwater 

● Threatened fish species - Niangua darter 

● Declining species and critical habitat 

● Threaten water supply and recreation resources 

Actions taken or proposed: The project is being implemented under the lead of the local Soil and Water 

Conservation District and involves a number of partners carrying out different components. Activities 

include biological, habitat, and water quality monitoring; animal manure management systems; 

farmstead assessment; and plugging abandoned wells. An activity with local 4-H organizations was 

undertaken to involve youth in water quality issues. USDA Water Quality Incentive Program funds are 

also being applied to address water quality concerns in the watershed. Projects were initiated in 1991 and 

will continue through 1997 at the current funding level. Additional funding for monitoring is anticipated 

if the project is accepted into the National NPS Watershed Projects Monitoring Program. 

Stakeholders:

Dairymen and cattlemen 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

Missouri Department of Health 

Public and Private Water Districts 

Recreation and Tourism Industry 
University of Missouri 

U.S. EPA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geologic Survey 

USDA-NRCS, Cooperative Extension 

Contact:

Betty Keehart

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 176

Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0176

(314) 751-7144

FAX: (314) 751-9396

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Walnut Creek Prairie Restoration Project

Size and location: Walnut Creek, located in Jasper County in central Iowa, drains a 7,900-hectare 

(19,500-acre) watershed and discharges into the Des Moines River. 
Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has awarded 319(h) grant funds ($435,800) to provide overall 

monitoring project coordination and monitoring activities including sampling and analytical work. The 

project is a candidate for the National Nonpoint Source Watershed Projects Monitoring Program. 

Organization that initiated project:

Iowa Department of Natural Resources/Geologic Survey Bureau 

Major environmental problems:

● Sediment 

● Suspended solids 

● Nutrients 

● Pesticides (including atrazine and ala-chlor) from croplands 

● Elevated nitrate and bacterial levels in stream 

● Declining fish communities. 

Actions taken or proposed: This 4-year project will begin in FY95. The primary objective is to initiate a 

comprehensive, nonpoint-source monitoring project in the Walnut Creek watershed to quantitatively 

document the water quality improvements resulting from restoration of riparian and upland ecosystems 

and implementation of agricultural management measures for soil conservation and nutrient and pest 

management and to incorporate aspects of the monitoring activities and results into the Refuge's 

considerable education and demonstration efforts. The Walnut Creek Wildlife Refuge was established by 

Congress to restore native prairie/savanna, the rarest of North America's major natural landscapes, on an 

3496-hectare (8,654-acre) area in the Walnut Creek watershed. Land within the refuge will be converted 

to prairie/savanna over a multiyear period. Lands remaining in row crop production during the 

restoration period will be required to implement specific agricultural best management practices (BMPs). 

In order to document the water quality improvements that result from this land use conversion, a 

comprehensive paired watershed monitoring program will be implemented using the adjacent Squaw 

Creek basin (4680 hectares/11,710 acres). The monitoring plan will utilize a combination of surface and 

ground water and aquatic ecosystem measurements to assess water quality improvements. 

Stakeholders:

Iowa Department of Natural Resources/ Geological Survey Bureau 

Iowa State University 

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture 

University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory 
U.S. EPA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geologic Survey 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

USDA Soil Tilth Laboratory 

Contact:

Ubbo Agena

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Wallace Office Building

Des Moines, Iowa 50319

(515) 281-6402

FAX: (515) 281-8895

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Walnut Creek Watershed Project

Size and location: The Walnut Creek watershed is approximately 47 square kilometers (18 square miles) 

in size. It is located in central Iowa approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) south of Ames, Iowa. 
Although the specific site where the place-based research is occurring is Walnut Creek, the goal is to 

regionalize results to at least the Western Cornbelt Plains Ecoregion, if not the entire Midwest. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Walnut Creek is the primary location for EPA's Midwest Agrichemical 

Surface/Subsurface Transport and Effects Research (MASTER) program. The Walnut Creek watershed 

is a U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Resource Service Management Systems Evaluation 

Area (USDA-ARS MSEA) site. The USDA-ARS National Soil Tilth Lab oversees the site and is EPA's 

primary cooperator. MASTER is a multi EPA Laboratory Program involving the Ada, Athens, Corvallis, 

Duluth, and Las Vegas labs. (Management of MASTER is the responsibility of the Athens lab; however, 

since a project for this site was not included in the list, RSKERL-Ada prepared this summary, which is 

focused on Ada's involvement.) 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. EPA 

Major environmental problems: Agricultural nonpoint source pollution. The research focus and/or 

environmental endpoint responsibilities of the EPA labs are: 

● Ada - agrichemical fate, site characterization, modeling; ground water and soil quality 

● Athens - system modeling; water quality 

● Corvallis - terrestrial habitat quality and biotic diversity 

● Duluth - aquatic habitat quality and biotic diversity 

● Las Vegas - data base management and geographic information system (GIS); no specific 

endpoint responsibilities. 

The goal is to holistically address the agricultural pollution problem by focusing on both the chemical 

and ecological aspects at a specific location that typifies the situation in the western cornbelt. 

Actions taken or proposed: All laboratories including the Tilth Lab are preparing an assessment of the 

situation at Walnut Creek. Discussion of the effects on the environmental endpoints of various options to 

alleviate the problems are included as part of the assessment. After the assessment is completed, the plan 

is to implement, in conjunction with the Tilth Lab, the most feasible and promising options. In addition, 

while the assessment is being performed each lab is conducting both in-house and extramural research 

projects. RSKERL-Ada is conducting research on ground water modeling at the regional scale, 

development of a soil quality index, the fate of pesticides in soil and ground water, the fate of nitrate in 

the deeper subsurface, and ground water/surface water interactions. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural community 

General public 
U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. EPA Region VII 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Contact person:

Dr. Michael D. Jawson 

RSKERL-Ada

P.O. Box 1198

Ada, OK 74820

(405)-436-8560

FAX: (405)-436-8703

E-mail: jawson@ad3100.ada.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Region VIII Projects

Example projects submitted by Region VIII include the 15 projects listed below, plus its large-scale 

initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the multisite projects (see Part III). 

The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale and local-scale projects in this 

Region. 

The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of partners 

involved with EPA, and in their goals. Many are based on watersheds of rivers and creeks. Mining 

impacts, excessive water withdrawals, soil erosion, riparian and wetland degradation, heavy metals, 

sedimentation, nutrients and eutrophication, silvicultural and grazing impacts, livestock waste, and 

pesticide contamination are reported among the problems these projects seek to address. Actions taken 

include developing partnerships with a variety of local, state, and federal agencies, industries, private 

citizens' groups, and other organizations. Depending upon the environmental problems present, these 

multiorganizational teams might identify and assess important or degraded habitats; sponsor needed 

research; monitor and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources, and options for pollution prevention; 

propose development or revision of water quality standards; develop outreach and educational programs; 

or jointly develop management plans. Many of the local-scale projects also will enhance as well as 

benefit from the large-scale initiatives in the Region, which include the Colorado Plateau Ecosystem 

Partnership Project, the Colorado River Program, the Great Plains Initiative, the Prairie Pothole Region 

Ecosystem Assessment, and the Prairie Potholes/Missouri Coteau Ecoregion Assessment. 

List of sites
Region VIII projects in the Inventory at this time include: 

● Animas River Basin Watershed Project, CO

● Bear River, ID, UT, WY*

● Blackfoot River, MT

● Bowman-Haley Reservoir, ND

● Chalk Creek, UT

● Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, ID, MT, WA*

● Clear Creek, CO

● Goodman Creek, ND

● Kootenay River, ID, MT, British Columbia*

● Little Bear River, UT

● Otter Creek, UT

● Red River Watershed, ND

● Squaw Creek and Baldwin Creek, WY

● Upper Arkansas River, CO

● Upper Clark Fork Basin, MT

* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional 

boundaries are summarized under each Region in which they occur. 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Animas River Basin Watershed Project
Size and location: The Animas Basin headwaters originate in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern 

Colorado. The major towns in the watershed are Silverton and Durango. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provides technical assistance and monetary support through the 

Rocky Mountain Headwaters Initiative and through the Nonpoint Source Program. Technical assistance 

has also been provided on setting water quality standards as goals and ground water monitoring. 

Organizations that initiated project: The organizations that initiated this collaborative effort were a local 

stakeholder group, the Colorado Water Quality Division, and the Colorado Center for Environmental 

Management. The local group is supported by a resource group of federal and state agencies participating 

in the local watershed group. 

Major environmental problems: Major environmental problems result from past mining activities in the 

basin, growth problems which include major section 404 actions, coal bed methane problems in drinking 

water, and recreation. 

Actions taken or proposed: Numerous actions have been taken, and more are proposed. 

● The Division of Wildlife is investigating substrate and other habitat limitations to aquatic life. 

● Cooperative sampling is being conducted by industry, environmental groups, State of Colorado, 

Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 

Geological Survey, and EPA to target problem areas within the watershed for special projects. 

● A local coordinator was hired to help facilitate efforts and to provide a local clearinghouse for 

information. 

● Feasibility studies for five targeted mine site remediation areas will take place this summer. One 

mining company is taking on a nonpoint source demonstration on how to clean up abandoned 

mines. 

● Water quality standards were revised, setting current ambient standards with goal water quality 

standards in place within 3 years. 

● A bibliography of all available data and studies was compiled by the Bureau of Mines. 

● The Corps of Engineers has identified this area as a special study area. 

● Investigation of funding sources for possible clean-up actions. 

● Pilot study for regulatory policy options. 

Stakeholders:

Colorado Center for Environmental Management 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 
Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources 

Colorado Geological Survey 

Concerned Citizens 

Durango Water Department 

Friends of the Animas River 

La Plata County 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

San Juan County 

Sunnyside Mining Company 

Southwest Water Conservancy District 

Sierra Club 

Silver Wing Mining 

Shenandoah Mining 

Tusco 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

U.S. EPA 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Contacts:

Bill Simon

Animas Basin Coordinator

PO Box 401

Silverton, CO 81433

Carol Russell

EPA Region VIII (8WM-WQ)

999 18th St.

Denver, CO

(303) 293-1449

FAX: (303)391-6957

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Bear River
Size and location: The Bear River has a 19,700-square-kilometer (7600-square-mile) watershed located 

in Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided technical assistance, funding, and participation in 

coordination committees. 

Organization that initiated project:

Utah Division of Water Resources 

Major environmental problems:

● Soil erosion, increased sediment loadings, coliforms, and high nutrient loadings due to animal 

feeding operations, dairies, urban development, roads, oil and gas exploration, and silviculture 

● Riparian vegetation removal 

● Stream channelization 

● Degraded stream channels and stream banks 

Actions taken or proposed: Interest in increasing the use of the river as a drinking water source for the 

growing urban population in the lower basin and along the Wasatch Front prompted the Utah Legislature 

to enact the Bear River Development Act and fund a Bear River water development and management 

plan. The effort is to address both water development and water quality issues with a water quality plan 

that includes a broad-reaching analysis of pollutant loading to the river as well as chemical, biological, 

and physical habitat assessments. Because the Bear River encompasses Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, a 

regional planning effort has been initiated. The purpose of the regional effort is to share information, 

coordinate planning efforts, and promote "grass roots" direction and participation. The Bear River 

Watershed Water Quality Coordination Committee is coordinating an array of water projects in the Bear 

River Basin initiated by different organizations and groups. 

For example, the State of Utah, EPA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) initiated a 

watershed restoration project on the Little Bear River (one of the major tributaries in the basin), using 

funds from USDA and EPA. The project includes stream channel and riparian habitat restoration, land 

management, and animal waste treatment actions. Now under way in Wyoming are several additional 

nonpoint source projects aimed at restoring tributary streams that have been impacted by channelization, 

stream bank modification, and riparian habitat loss. 

These on-the-ground demonstration projects are helping to generate enthusiasm for more cooperative 

efforts. 

Stakeholders:

Bear Lake Regional Commission 
Bear River Resource Conservation and Development Council 

Idaho Division of Environmental Quality 

Idaho Fish and Game Department 

Local citizen groups 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

Utah Department of Agriculture 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Utah Division of Water Resources 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

Utah Power and Light Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Contact:

Barbara Russell

Bear River Resource Conservation and Development Council

1260 N. 200 East, Suite 4

Logan, UT 84321

(801) 753-3871

FAX: (801) 753-4037

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Blackfoot River
Size and location: The Blackfoot River has a 5930-square-kilometer (2290-square-mile) watershed 

located in western Montana and eastern Idaho. The watershed is 201 kilometers (125 miles) long. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided technical assistance as well as funding for a director's 

position and creation of a geographic information (GIS) system. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Blackfoot Trout Unlimited 

Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition 

Major environmental problems:

● Sedimentation from grazing and silvi-cultural activities 

● Heavy metals from active and inactive mines 

● Loss of riparian areas and instream habitat 

● Recreational impacts 

Actions taken or proposed: In 1991, the Blackfoot River Symposium was held. It established the 

Blackfoot River Challenge to promote cooperative resource management of the Blackfoot River, its 

tributaries, and adjacent lands. The symposium developed the following goals: 

● Provide a forum for the timely distribution of technical and topical information from public and 

private sources. 

● Foster communication between public and private interests to avoid duplication of efforts and 

capitalize on opportunities. 

● Recognize and work with the diverse interests in the Blackfoot Valley to resolve issues and avoid 

confrontation. 

● Examine the cumulative affects of land management decisions and promote actions that will 

lessen their adverse impacts in the Blackfoot Valley. 

American Rivers listed the Blackfoot River as one of the top 10 most endangered rivers. Native char and 

native cutthroat trout are species of concern. 

EPA funded a geographic information system project that will assemble the available information on the 

Blackfoot River into a usable format to facilitate watershed assessment and land use decisions. 

Meanwhile, private funds have been provided for a fisheries investigation report and a part-time 

facilitator. In addition, some ranchers are reducing cattle access to tributaries to reduce erosion and 

nonpoint source pollution. EPA has supported the restoration and monitoring of a tributary impacted by 

placer mining and channel straightening. 

To date, activities have been limited to noncontroversial arenas. However, the coalition will continue to 
work together searching for solutions to more difficult issues over time. 

Stakeholders:

ARCO 

ASARCO 

Blackfoot Trout Unlimited 

Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition 

County Commissioners 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Idaho Division of Environmental Quality 

Landowners 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences 

Montana Department of State Lands 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Phelps-Dodge 

Plum Creek Paper 

Recreationalists 

The Nature Conservancy 

Trout Unlimited 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

Contacts:

Jim Stone, President

Blackfoot River Challenge

Box 148

Ovando, MT 59854

(406) 793-5530

Mike Settevendemie, Executive Director

Blackfoot River Challenge

Box 1117

Bonner, MT 59823

(406) 244-5600

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Bowman-Haley Reservoir
Size and location: Bowman-Haley Reservoir consists of a 123,000-hectare (304,000-acre) watershed 

located in southwestern North Dakota along the border between North and South Dakota. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. 

Organization that initiated project:

Bowman-Slope Soil Conservation District 

Major environmental problems:

● Nutrients from grazing practices and feedlots 

● Eutrophication 

● Sedimentation from grazing practices and eroding streambanks 

● Contamination from livestock waste 

Actions taken or proposed: To improve water quality conditions in the reservoir, the Bowman Slope Soil 

Conservation District and Water Resource District Boards initiated a water quality improvement plan. At 

least 90 percent of the watershed is used for agriculture or recreation. The primary goal of the plan is to 

reduce wind and water erosion in the watershed by improving the management practices on over 50 

percent of the agricultural lands in the watershed. The project objectives are: 

● Develop resource management for over 50 percent of the agricultural lands in the watershed to 

reduce wind/water erosion and the transport of nonpoint source pollutants to the reservoir. 

● Develop livestock waste management plans for the priority livestock concentration areas to 

reduce/eliminate runoff from these areas. 

● Monitor water quality trends and track implementation of best management practices. 

● Educate landowners/operators on the most effective land use technologies and management 

strategies that will protect/improve water quality. 

The Conservation District is meeting the objectives by implementing an aggressive nonpoint source 

information/education campaign and providing financial and technical assistance to landowners to 

encourage voluntary implementation and conservation practices on their farm units. Participation by 

individual farmers in voluntarily implementing practices to improve water quality throughout the 

watershed has been high. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 

Bowman-Slope Soil Conservation District 

Ducks Unlimited 
Farmers 

Harding County Conservation District 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

North Dakota Department of Health 

North Dakota Extension Service 

North Dakota Game and Fish 

Pheasants Forever 

South Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural Resources 

State Association of Conservation Districts 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contacts:

State: 

Greg Sandness

North Dakota State Department of Health and Consolidated Laboratories

1200 Missouri Ave.

P.O. Box 5520

Bismarck, ND 58502-5520

(701) 328-5232

FAX: (701) 328-5200

Local: 

Kent Belland

Bowman-Slope Soil Conservation District

P.O. Box 256

Bowman, ND 58623

(701) 523-3872

FAX: (701) 523-3870
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Chalk Creek
Size and location: Chalk Creek has a 69,000-hectare (173,000-acre) watershed that is located 72 

kilometers (45 miles) east of Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding in support of this project. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Utah Department of Agriculture 

Major environmental problems:

● Sedimentation due to oil and gas construction sites, grazing practices, road construction, and loss 

of riparian vegetation 

● Nutrients due to erosion and livestock concentrations 

● Degrading stream channels and stream banks 

● Loss of riparian vegetation 

● Eutrophication of Echo Reservoir 

Actions taken or proposed: Inventories have been completed for rangeland, forest, irrigated cropland, 

fisheries, stream and riparian areas, and wildlife. Alternative treatment plans have been developed for 

rangeland, irrigated cropland, and forest land. 

The resource inventories and alternative treatment plans were used to complete a Coordinated Resource 

Management Plan (CRMP) for the watershed in 1994. The CRMP is a watershed management plan that 

represents consensus of all the stakeholders in the watershed. Watershed activities are coordinated by a 

Project Steering Committee, which was organized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 

the local soil conservation district in 1991. 

A project to demonstrate stream stabilization measures has been completed with Clean Water Act 

(CWA) section 319 funds. USDA provided the technical assistance. Now that the CRMP has been 

completed, USDA is accelerating work on development of conservation plans for individual landowners. 

Watershed treatment practices to stabilize stream channels and control pollutants from rangeland and 

irrigated pasture and hayland are in the initial phases of implementation. Funding is being provided 

through CWA section 319, the USDA Water Quality Incentive Program, and landowners. Information 

and education activities are also being carried out. 

Stakeholders:

Citizens Dependent on Weber River for Drinking Water 

Local governments 
Local landowners 

Summit Land Trust 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Utah Association of Conservation Districts 

Utah Department of Agriculture 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 

Utah Division of Water Resources 

Utah Division of Water Rights 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

Weber Basin Water Conservancy District 

Contact:

Roy Gunnell, Division of Water Quality

Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 144870

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870

(801) 538-6146

FAX: (801) 538-6016

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed
Size and location: The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed covers 67,300 square kilometers (26,000 

square miles) in Montana, Idaho, and Washington. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding and technical support for various projects in the 

watershed. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Congress 

Major environmental problems:

● Nutrients from sources including irrigated agriculture, septic tanks, and municipal and industrial 

wastewater discharges 

● Heavy metals from active and inactive mining and smelting activities 

Actions taken or proposed: Section 525 of the 1987 Clean Water Act called for a comprehensive study 

of the sources of pollution in Pend Oreille Lake, the Pend Oreille River, and the Clark Fork River and its 

tributaries. Such an undertaking has required help from three states, two EPA regions, and the EPA Las 

Vegas Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. 

Using a range of technological tools, the study of the rivers feeding Lake Pend Oreille was linked with an 

analysis of the lake by a project team made up of the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Idaho, 

the Panhandle Health District, the Eastern Washington University, the Bonner County Planning and 

Development Department, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, the Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game, and the EPA Las Vegas Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. 

Objectives of the project include:

● Control nuisance algae in the Clark Fork River and Pend Oreille River by reducing nutrient 

concentrations. 

● Protect Pend Oreille Lake water quality by maintaining or reducing current rate of nutrient 

loading from the Clark Fork River and Pend Oreille River. 

● Reduce near shore eutrophication in Pend Oreille Lake by reducing nutrient loading from local 

sources. 

● Improve Pend Oreille Lake water quality through macrophyte management and tributary nonpoint 

source controls. 

Actions include:

● Convene a Tri-State Implementation Council to implement the management plan 

recommendations. 

● Establish a basinwide phosphate detergent ban. 
● Establish numeric nutrient loading targets for the Clark Fork River, Pend Oreille River, and Pend 

Oreille Lake. 

● Develop and maintain programs to educate the public on its role in protecting and maintaining 

water quality. 

● Control Eurasian milfoil (a nuisance plant) by education, rotovation (a harvesting technique), and 

research into alternative methods of control. 

● Install centralized sewer systems for developed areas on Pend Oreille Lake. 

● Institute seasonal land application and other improvements at the Missoula wastewater treatment 

facility. 

● Enforce existing regulations and laws consistently and aggressively, particularly state antidegradation statutes. 

● Establish and maintain a basinwide water quality monitoring network to assess effectiveness and 

trends and to better identify sources of pollutants. 

● Develop and enforce storm water and erosion control plans and county ordinances. 

In addition, Idaho received a Clean Lakes Program grant in 1987 to conduct a Phase I 

diagnostic/feasibility study for Lake Pend Oreille and its watershed. This study will analyze the lake's 

condition and determine the causes of that condition, examine the watershed to determine the sources of 

pollution, and then evaluate solutions and recommendations for the most feasible procedures to restore 

and protect lake water quality. 

In 1993, a Phase II Clean Water Lakes grant was awarded. The Phase II project will translate the Phase I 

recommendations into action. Phase II projects implement in-lake restoration work as well as critical 

watershed management activities to control nonpoint source pollution to a lake. 

Stakeholders:

City of Butte 

City of Deer Lodge 

City of Missoula 

City of Newport 

Clark Fork Pend Oreille Coalition 

Clean Lakes Coordinations Council 

Idaho County Commissions 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 
Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Implementation Council 

Intermountain Forest Industry Association 

Intermountain Resources 

Kalispill Indian Tribe 

Kootenay Tribe of Idaho 

Local citizens 

Missoula City, County Health Department 

Montana County Commissions 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

Montana Department of Health and Environmental Science 

Montana Power Company 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Pend Oreille Conservation District 

Steering Committee for the Tri-State Implementation Council 

Stone Container 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Forest Service 

University of Idaho 

Washington Department of Ecology 
Washington Department of Environmental Quality 

Washington Water and Power 

Contacts:

State: 

Gary Ingman

Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences

Water Quality Bureau

Cogswell Building

Helena, MT 59620

(406) 444-5320

FAX: (406) 444-1374

Local: 

Ruth Watkins

Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Tri-State Implementation Council

206 N. 4th Ave., Suite 157

Sand Point, ID 83864

(208) 265-9092

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Clear Creek
Size and location: The Clear Creek Watershed covers roughly 1550 square kilometers (600 square miles) 

and includes 5 counties and more than 13 communities. From the headwaters on the continental divide to 

the plains near Denver, Clear Creek connects small mountain communities with Colorado s largest 

metropolitan area. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided seed money for the project by hiring a local coordinator 

and sharing in the cost of several watershed projects. 

Organization that initiated project: No one organization initiated the project, per se. It resulted from a 

critical mass of representative groups from industry, agencies, local organizations, and private citizens 

that joined together to protect Clear Creek. 

Major environmental problems:

● Metal loadings from active and inactive mining sites 

● Highway construction and maintenance runoff and direct spills to the creek from highway 

accidents 

● Urban development and runoff 

● Hydrologic modification 

● Nutrient pollution from septic tanks and municipal point sources 

● Erosion caused by construction for gambling growth 

● Industrial discharges 

● Leaking underground storage tanks 

Actions taken or proposed: In 1983 the Clear Creek/Central City site was included on the Superfund 

National Priorities List. It is one of the largest Superfund study areas in the Nation, encompassing all of 

two counties in the upper watershed. Planned Superfund remedial actions and voluntary cleanups have 

played and will continue to play an important role in the restoration of the river. Specifically, they 

include Argo Tunnel water treatment plant, Burleigh Tunnel and man-made wetlands treatments, and 

private-party mine waste cleanups in Central City and Blackhawk. 

A unique partnership was formed to address the McClelland Mine. Recently, through cooperative efforts 

of Superfund, Coors Brewing Company, the Colorado Department of Health, the Colorado Department 

of Transportation, Clear Creek County, and EPA's Mining Headwaters Initiative (each taking one part of 

the six-part project), a comprehensive restoration was accomplished. The capping of mine tailings and 

mine waste piles, treatment of a wetlands area, and boat ramp and trail installation transformed what was 

once a hazardous site into a county park. 

Other actions taken in the watershed are: 

● Emergency dial-down system to inform water users when spills have occurred in the Creek. 

● Completion of the Bakersville to Loveland trail by Coors, the County, the Department of 
Transportation and the U.S. Forest Service. 

● AMAX Henderson Mine water quality project. 

● Reworking of old Urad mill tailings to reduce metal loadings. 

● Guanella Pass road reconstruction. 

● Bear Mine Project by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Forest Service. 

● Idaho Springs stream restoration project. 

● Formation of the North Clear Creek miniforumÄa venue for small mountain communities to 

cooperate on environmental solutions. 

● Gambling impacts projects for water quality protection and transportation improvement. 

● Water supply environmental impact statement. 

● Wetlands planning. 

● City ordinances. 

● Clear Creek Land ConservancyÄ Forest Stewardship Program. 

● Jefferson County Open Space Ä acquisitions to protect water quality and stream corridors Trails 

2000 Plan. 

● The Nature Conservancy mapping of endangered species, specifically the orchid Ute Ladies 

Tresses (Spiranthes diluvailis). 

● Clear Creek Canyon Action Plan environmentally sustainable development plan for the central 

canyon area. 

● Golden Gate CanyonÄ Great Outdoors Colorado State Park improvements. 

● Colorado School of Mines freshman class EPICSÄnonpoint source evaluations. 

● Colorado School of Mines Research InstituteÄemergency cleanup of radioactive waste. 

● City of GoldenÄwater quality ordinances and enforcement. 

● Riparian restoration of Clear Creek through Golden and Wheat Ridge by Coors. 

● Clear Creek WIIN Newsletter and video. 

● Clear CreekÄI-76 joint land use plan by Arvada and Jefferson County with specific 

environmental performance standards. 

● Standley Lake AgreementÄ comprehensive watershed management agreement for 

implementation of new water quality standards within the basin. 

● Urban Drainage and Flood Control DistrictÄurban runoff water quality control and flood 

prevention projects. 

● Division of WildlifeÄStream Watch Program. 

● Adams County River Parks. 

Many of these projects and programs were instigated or facilitated by the Clear Creek Watershed Forum, 

which was organized and attended by a diverse group of stakeholder interests. The Clear Creek 

Watershed effort is a model for ecosystem protection in Colorado. The water and the watershed through 

which it flows easily establish a sense of place for the citizens and a focus for efforts to protect the 

environment. Over 85 percent of the water is used as a drinking water supply for the metro area; 

therefore, the people of the lowlands have a special interest in remediation of the impacts of the past 

mining activities. Also, the enhancement and protection of natural areas for recreation have spawned 

several joint projects throughout the watershed. 
Stakeholders:

Cities - Central City, Black Hawk, Empire, Silver Plume, Georgetown, Idaho Springs, Golden, Arvada, 

Westminster, Northglenn, etc. 

Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment 

Colorado Department of Transportation 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 

Counties - Jefferson, Clear Creek, Gilpin 

Denver Regional Council of Governments 

Environmental groups - Clear Creek Land Conservancy, PAVE 

Large and Small industries - Amax/Cyprus, Coors Brewery Company, Western Mobile Cooley Gravel 

Local citizens 

Professional organizations 

Stanley Lake Users Group 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association 

Contacts:

Carl Norbeck

Colorado Water Quality Control Division

4200 Cherry Creek Dr. South

Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3513

FAX: (303) 782-0390

Holly Fliniau (8HWM-SR) or Carol Russell (8WM-WQ)

U.S. EPA Region VIII

999 18th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 293-1822 or (303) 293-1449

FAX: (303) 39-6957

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Goodman Creek
Size and location: Goodman Creek has a 24,000-hectare (59,000-acre) watershed and is located in westcentral North Dakota. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. 

Organization that initiated project:

Mercer County Soil Conservation District and Water Resource District 

Major environmental problems:

● Nutrients from soil erosion 

● Sediments from soil erosion and degraded riparian areas 

● Contamination from livestock waste 

Actions taken or proposed: The Mercer County Soil Conservation District is sponsoring and 

coordinating this project in rural North Dakota. The water quality of Goodman Creek should be 

improved by promoting improved land management and installing various best management practices 

(BMPs) that effectively reduce erosion on 60 percent of the agricultural lands within the watershed. 

These land treatment practices will focus primarily on managing crop residue and improving current 

grazing systems within the project areas. In addition, information on the positive impacts the 

implementation of various BMPs can have on water quality within a small watershed will be documented 

and disseminated. Water quality and land treatment data compiled during this project will be used to 

determine the correlation between land treatment and water quality improvements. Upon completion of 

this project, the data will be analyzed to evaluate the impact the project activities had on the water quality 

within the subwatershed and the cumulative effect subwatershed treatment can have on water quality 

within the large watersheds of North Dakota. Given the size of this project area, trends toward improved 

water quality should be nearly immediate and more easily documented than those in larger watersheds. 

Stakeholders:

Individual farmers 

Mercer County Soil Conservation District and Water Resource District 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contacts:

State: 

Greg Sandness
North Dakota State Department of Health and Consolidated Laboratories

1200 Missouri Ave.

P.O. Box 5520

Bismarck, ND 58502-5520

(701) 328-5232

FAX: (701) 328-5200

Local: 

Pam Stabenow

Mercer County Soil Conservation District and Water Resource District Boards

1200 Highway 49, Box 580

Beulah, ND 58523

(701) 873-2101

FAX: (701) 873-4689

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Kootenay River
Size and location: The watershed of the Kootenay River covers 49,000 square kilometers (19,000 square 

miles) in northwestern Montana, northern Idaho, and British Columbia. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provided funding for data collection in the watershed, an Adopt-AStream project, and to hire a professional facilitator. 

Organization that initiated project:

Cabinet Resource Group 

Major environmental problems:

● Threats from silviculture, hydropower, mining, and pulp mills 

● Protection of species of special concern (white sturgeon and bulltrout) 

Actions taken or proposed: The Kootenay River Network (KRN) has been formed and is composed of 

federal, state, tribal, provincial, industry, and citizen group representatives who are interested in the 

Kootenay River basin. The mission of the KRN is to involve stakeholders in the protection and 

restoration of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Kootenay River basin. 

The goals are: 

● Improve communication among government and tribal water resource management agencies and 

public and private interests for British Columbia, Idaho, and Montana. 

● Pursue coordination of efforts and standardization of methods. 

● Develop and implement a basinwide water quality monitoring program. 

● Fully use monitoring information to accomplish proactive, scientifically based water resources 

management. 

● Educate the public and solicit information about water resources issues. 

EPA, the Bonneville Power Administration, Noranda Minerals, and Champion International funded the 

Water Quality Status Report (January 1994), which provides a history and description of the Kootenay 

River basin; discusses current water quality issues, development activities, and aquatic resources in the 

basin; gives an overview of past, present, and potential future environmental issues and problems in the 

basin; and makes recommendations for prioritizing the basin's water quality concerns and critical issues. 

The KRN also received funding to have Adopt-A-Stream Foundation conduct a workshop to train 20 

citizen volunteers in stream monitoring methods and implement a monitoring program. These volunteers, 

called Streamkeepers, are to train others as well. The KRN has also received funding for a professional 

facilitator. 

Stakeholders:

British Columbia Ministry of Environment 
Cabinet Resource Group 

Champion International 

East Kootenai Environmental Society 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Idaho Division of Environmental Quality 

Kootenay National Forest 

Kootenay Tribe of Idaho 

Kootenay Tribes of British Columbia 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences 

Noranda Minerals Corps 

Panhandle National Forest 

Contact:

Jill Davies

14 Old Bull River Road

Noxon, MT 59853

(406) 847-2228

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Little Bear River
Size and location: The Little Bear River has a 77,600-hectare (192,000-acre) watershed located 

approximately 80 miles 129 kilometers (80 miles) north of Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding and technical assistance in support of this 

project. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Local soil conservation district 

Major environmental problems:

● Sediments 

● Nutrients 

● Erosion 

● Runoff from dairies, feedlots, and irrigated cropland where animal wastes are frequently applied 

● Poor riparian conditions 

● Degradation of Hyrum Reservoir 

● Degraded stream channels and stream banks 

Actions taken or proposed: This watershed project is a coordinated effort involving funds from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Hydrologic Unit Area Program, Clean Water Act (CWA) section 

319, USDA Water Quality Incentive Program, Bureau of Reclamation, landowners, and a state revolving 

fund. A wide range of practices for stream stabilization, animal waste management, riparian restoration, 

and grazing and cropland management are being implemented. The project is also being coordinated with 

a CWA section 314 project to improve Hyrum Reservoir. 

Stakeholders:

Lake users 

Local citizens 

Local soil conservation district 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
U.S. Forest Service 

Utah Association of Conservation Districts 

Utah Department of Agriculture 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Utah Department of Natural Resources 

Contact:

Roy Gunnell, Division of Water Quality

Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 144870

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870

(801) 538-6146

FAX: (801) 538-6016

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Otter Creek
Size and location: Otter Creek has a 97,000-hectare (240,000-acre) watershed located approximately 322 

kilometers (200 miles) south of Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding in support of this project. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Local soil conservation district 

Major environmental problems:

● Nutrients 

● Sediment 

● Degraded riparian areas and stream channel 

● Stream bank erosion 

● Erosion on rangeland 

● Animal waste 

● Eutrophication of Otter Creek Reservoir 

Actions taken or proposed: This project is coordinating funding through the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Hydrologic Unit area, Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319, USDA Water Quality 

Incentive Program, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service, and private sources. 

The Soil Conservation Service oversees this project, and a watershed project steering committee plays an 

active role in the project. Several water quality demonstration projects such as riparian and stream 

stabilization, rangeland brush control, and reseeding are under way or have been completed with 

technical assistance from USDA and BLM. This watershed restoration project includes treatment of both 

private and federal lands. Watershed treatment is also coordinated with a CWA section 314 project to 

improve Otter Creek Reservoir. 

Stakeholders:

Local landowners 

Local soil conservation district 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Forest Service 

Utah Association of Conservation Districts 

Utah Department of Agriculture 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Utah Department of Natural Resources 

Contact:

Roy Gunnell, Division of Water Quality

Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 144870

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870

(801) 538-6146

FAX: (801) 538-6016

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Red River Watershed
Size and location: The Red River Watershed is located in eastern North Dakota and western Minnesota. 

Part of the project area covers the Carmel, Homme, and Renwick subwatersheds in northeastern North 

Dakota, which total 119,720 hectares (296,332 acres). Another part of the effort on the Red River is 

focused on the southern part of the watershed near the cities of Fargo and Moorhead. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding under section 319 of the Clean Water Act and 

provided technical assistance. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Red River Resource Conservation and Development Council 

Pembina, Walsh, and Cavalier Soil Conservation Districts and Water Resource Districts 

North Dakota Department of Health and Consolidated Laboratories 

Major environmental problems:

● Eutrophication of Homme Reservoir due to agricultural practices 

● Sedimentation of Red River and tributaries in northeastern North Dakota due to agricultural 

practices 

● Ammonia and low dissolved oxygen due to wastewater treatment discharges in southeastern 

North Dakota 

● Threats from agricultural practices to the Icelandic aquifer 

Actions taken or proposed: The Red River Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D) 

initiated the watershed effort in the northeastern area of the watershed to reduce wind and water erosion 

on 80 percent of the agricultural lands in the subwatersheds. The RC&D annual nutrient and sediment 

loadings are expected to be lowered by implementing the following objectives and efforts, which are 

under way: 

● Develop resource management plans for 80 percent of the lands in the subwatersheds. 

● Implement an information and education program to educate the residents on the impacts of 

nonpoint source pollution and possible preventive measures. 

● Document land use improvements and trends in water quality. 

● Provide financial and technical assistance to producers to implement the resource management 

plans. 

● Demonstrate best management practices to restore riparian zones that are under various 

agricultural uses such as cropland and livestock production. 

The State of North Dakota joined with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to model and verify 

conditions in the southern area of the Red River mainstem using QUAL2E. The data will be available by 

the end of 1994, but the work has so far produced a list of monitoring and modeling needs. A group of 
stakeholders has developed a coordinated, monthly synoptic in-stream monitoring plan to continue 

modeling efforts. In addition, the group is currently coordinating with several organizations to implement 

a project to observe the river's behavior in winter conditions when discharges take place under the ice 

during low flow. 

The result of these studies will help determine the next pollution prevention actions. In the immediate 

future, actions will include the refinement of effluent limits from the cities' discharges. These limits will 

probably lead to upgrading wastewater treatment facilities. Possible future actions for consideration 

during the second phase of this effort include changing upstream dam operations and addressing 

nonpoint source pollution from surrounding agricultural use areas. 

Stakeholders:

American Crystal Sugar 

City of Fargo, North Dakota 

City of Moorhead, Minnesota 

City of Park River, North Dakota 

Farmers 

North Dakota Department of Health 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

North Dakota Parks and Recreation 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

Pembina, Walsh and Cavalier Soil Conservation District and Water Resource District 

Red River Resource Conservation and Development Council 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Contacts:

Greg Sandness/Mike Ell

North Dakota State Department of Health and Consolidated Laboratories

1200 Missouri Ave.

P.O. Box 5520

Bismarck, ND 58502-5520

(701) 328-5232 (Greg)

(701) 328-5150 (Mike)

FAX: (701) 328-5200

Paul Willman

Red River Resource Conservation and Development Council

1004 Hill Ave.

Grafton, ND 58237

(701) 352-0127

FAX: (701) 352-3015

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Squaw Creek and Baldwin Creek
Size and location: The watershed for Squaw Creek and Baldwin Creek covers 26,300 hectares (65,000 

acres) in central Wyoming. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding as part of a cost-sharing effort in the project. 

Organization that initiated project:

Popo Agie Conservation District 

Major environmental problems:

● Ground water contaminated with pesticides 

● Hydrological modification 

● Severe sedimentation 

● Surface water contaminated by coliform, nutrients, salinity, and pesticides 

● Destroyed riparian areas resulting in loss of trout fishery 

● Contaminated drinking water 

Actions taken or proposed: The Conservation District has received Clean Water Act section 319 funding 

to work with nearly all of the 96 landowners in the watershed to implement best management practices 

(BMPs) through cost-sharing. The BMPs include proper grazing use, irrigation water management, 

pasture and hayland management, nutrient and pest management, wildlife upland and wetland habitat 

management, and stream improvements. An information and education program includes displays at the 

county fair, news releases, tours of the project area, workshops for teachers, a national award-winning 

demonstration area at Lander High School, and other activities. 

Stakeholders:

Boy Scouts 

City of Lander County Extension Service 

Elementary and high schools 

Landowners 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Popo Agie Conservation District 

Students 
U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Forest Service 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Wyoming Fish and Game Department 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Contact:

Karen Wilbur

Popo Agie Conservation District

600 N. Highway 287

Lander, WY 82520

(307) 332-3114

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Upper Arkansas River
Size and location: The watershed for the Upper Arkansas River covers 13,000 square kilometers (500 

square miles) in central Colorado extending from the Continental Divide in Pike-San Isabel National 

Forest to Pueblo Reservoir where the plains meet the mountains. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provided initial leadership and continues to provide funding and 

technical assistance. 

Organizations that originated the project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Colorado Department of Health 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources 

Major environmental problems:

● Pollution from past mining practices 

● Erosion of rangeland 

● Loss of riparian and wetland areas 

● Hydrologic modification 

● Contaminated sediments 

Actions taken or proposed: Many state and federal agencies are involved in a wide range of activities in 

the basin. In 1989, a technical workshop brought all people conducting research in the Upper Arkansas 

Basin together to inform each other of their work, discuss specific questions, and develop 

recommendations for further research in the basin. The overarching finding from this forum was that 

coordination among agencies had to be improved. At the same time, researchers from EPA developed a 

proposed management plan for research that would lead to a comprehensive understanding and 

remediation of water quality impacts from human disturbances, principally hard rock mining. The 

ongoing work, the workshop, and the management plan helped generate enthusiasm for more cooperative 

efforts, which culminated in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the Colorado Departments 

of Health and Natural Resources, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and EPA, which, among other 

decisions, set a selfreproducing brown trout fishery as their biological remediation goal for the river. 

In 1992, EPA formed a Regional Upper Arkansas Watershed Initiative Team to coordinate development 

and implementation of a watershed protection strategy for the Upper Arkansas Basin. A number of Clean 

Water Act section 319 nonpoint source projects were initiated at abandoned mining sites along Chalk 

Creek and St. Kevin s Gulch and on rangeland along Badger Creek. In addition, recently constructed 

metal treatment facilities will control two major draining mine discharges to the river, with an expected 

significant reduction in metals load to the mainstem of the river as a result of Superfund and water 
discharge compliance actions. 

Local citizens are also active in the watershed. A local Resource Conservation and Development 

Council, with EPA funding support, hired a local teacher to serve as the on-site watershed coordinator for 

the initiative, and he has been rehired for a second year because of his successes. The on-site coordinator 

fosters cooperation among various stakeholders, solicits ideas for the strategy, and implements a public 

outreach program for the initiative. He coordinated a second MOU, which has the following goal: 

improve or maintain the aquatic ecosystem of the Upper Arkansas River Watershed. He coordinated the 

first watershed forum, focused on enhancing the awareness and knowledge of watershed citizens 

throughout the 242 kilometers (150 miles) of the river. The forum was planned and implemented with a 

steering committee of local interests. The evaluations showed it was highly successful and helpful in 

bringing information and a sense of watershed community to the participants. A volunteer monitoring 

program, with strong participation by local high schools, is active in the basin. This program, which was 

developed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, based on its success in the Arkansas basin, is being 

implemented statewide. 

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is conducting a water needs assessment for fish, 

recreationalists, and the riparian area of the mainstem. EPA's Wetland Research Program is supporting 

the development of a geographic information system, data base, and research project addressing 

hydrologic needs for the restoration of the wetland/riparian areas. The U.S. Forest Service and BLM 

consider the Upper Arkansas a priority watershed and a potential demonstration project for ecosystem 

management through the Colorado Ecosystem Partnership. 

Stakeholders:

ASARCO 

Cities of Leadville, Buena Vista, Salida and Canon City 

Colorado Association of Conservation Districts 

Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 

Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 

Colorado Riparian Association 

Colorado State Engineer s Office 

Irrigation companies 
Lake County Conservation District 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Sangre de Cristo Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. 

Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District 

The Nature Conservancy 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey 

Upper Arkansas River Recreation Task Force 

Contact:

Jeff Keidel

P.O. Box 938

Buena Vista, CO 81211

(719) 395-6035

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Upper Clark Fork Basin
Size and location: The Upper Clark Fork Basin consists of a 15,700-square-kilometer (6060-squaremile) watershed in western Montana. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided technical assistance through participation on the steering 

committee. 

Organization that initiated project:

Montana State Legislature 

Major environmental problems: Overappropriation of water, leading to dry reaches, elevated water 

temperatures, nuisance algae, low dissolved oxygen, and damaged fish habitat 

Actions taken or proposed: The Montana State Legislature passed legislation calling for a moratorium in 

the issuance of most new surface water rights until June 30, 1995. The legislation created the Upper 

Clark Fork Steering Committee, which is charged with operating a water management plan that would 

consider and balance all beneficial water uses in the basin above Milltown Dam. By law, the plan must 

contain a recommendation concerning the water rights moratorium and identify and make 

recommendations for resolving water issues in the basin. 

A planning process was developed following six public meetings throughout the basin. Six committees 

are to identify specific problems and potential solutions in various reaches of the basin and develop a 

dispute resolution process. The steering committee will integrate the information from the six committees 

into a coordinated, comprehensive management scheme. 

Stakeholders:

Hydroelectric utilities 

Irrigators 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

Recreational and environmental groups 

State and local water management agencies 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Water user groups 

Contacts:
Gerald Mueller

7165 Old Grant Road

Missoula, MT 59802

(406) 543-0026

Gary Ingman

Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences

Water Quality Bureau

Cogswell Building

Helena, MT 59620

(406) 444-5320

FAX: (406) 444-1374

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Region IX Projects

Example projects submitted by Region IX include the 12 projects listed below, plus its large-scale 

initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the multisite projects (see Part III). 

The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale and local-scale projects in this 

Region. 

The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of partners 

involved with EPA, and in their goals. Many are based on river basins and coastal bays. Overgrazing, 

erosion, nonpoint source problems from urban and agricultural areas, pesticides, declines in anadromous 

fish stocks, excessive water withdrawals, endangered species issues, point source control, habitat 

degradation and loss, riparian zone degradation, pathogens and toxics, and grazing, silvicultural, and 

mining impacts are reported among the problems these projects seek to address. Actions taken include 

developing partnerships with a variety of local, state, and federal agencies, industries, private citizens' 

groups, and other organizations. Depending upon the environmental problems present, these 

multiorganizational teams might identify and assess important or degraded habitats; sponsor needed 

research; monitor and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources, and options for pollution prevention; 

propose development or revision of water quality standards; develop outreach and educational programs; 

or jointly develop management plans. Many of the local-scale projects also will enhance as well as 

benefit from the large-scale initiatives in the Region, which include the San Francisco Bay/SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta Estuary Project, the President's Forest Plan for the Pacific Northwest, the Colorado 

Plateau Ecosystem Partnership Project, and the Colorado River Program. 

List of sites
Region IX projects in the Inventory at this time include: 

● Ala Wai Canal, HI

● Elkhorn Slough, CA

● Klamath Basin, CA, OR*

● Malibu Creek, CA

● Morro Bay, CA

● Oak Creek Watershed, AZ

● San Luis Rey River, CA

● Santa Margarita River, CA

● Santa Monica Bay, CA

● Truckee River, CA, NV

● Verde River Advance Identification (ADID) Project, AZ

● West Maui Watershed, HI

* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional 

boundaries are summarized under each Region in which they occur. 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Ala Wai Canal
Size and location: Ala Wai Canal watershed is located on the southern coast of the island of Oahu, 

Hawaii, and includes most of Waikiki. The watershed covers about 42.4 square kilometers (16.3 square 

miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: The project is supported by the following grants: a 604(b) grant for partial 

funding of a coordinator position at Hawaii Department of Health (DOH), 106 surface water funding for 

the development of biocriteria for three Ala Wai canal tributaries, 319 discretionary funds to partially 

fund a citizen volunteer monitoring project, and 106 ground water funding for a wellhead protection 

project. Future funding is being sought through 319 grants for watershed restoration and education work 

and 104(b)(3) grants to fund an intermittent Intergovernmental Personnel Agreement (IPA) position to 

work on Ala Wai issues. 

Organization that initiated project:

Hawaii Department of Health 

Major environmental problems:

● Coliform bacteria 

● Nutrients 

● Sediment 

● Pesticides 

● Litter and garbage dumping 

Actions taken or proposed: The Ala Wai Canal is a man-made estuary that separates the tourist 

destination of Waikiki from the rest of the island. The watershed encompasses a variety of land uses 

including urban areas, residential neighborhoods, preservation lands, agriculture, and three stream 

systems. A DOH internal working group has formed to integrate and coordinate Ala Wai Canal 

watershed protection efforts. 

Initially, the project will focus only on water programs, and it may expand later to include waste and 

toxics programs. Although DOH at present has the lead on the effort, it is envisioned that Ala Wai Canal 

coordination will be transferred to a community-funded effort within a few years. Thus, important shortterm tasks will include public outreach and participation efforts, development of a broad Ala Wai Canal 

watershed advisory/stakeholder group, and legislative support for bills or resolutions that may have an 

impact on the watershed. 

Stakeholders:

Department of Land and Natural Resources (HI) 

Hawaii Department of Health 
Iolani and Punahou schools 

Local interest groups, landowners, rowing clubs, businesses 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

University of Hawaii at Manoa 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Kelvin Sunada

Hawaii Department of Health

Environmental Planning Office

P.O. Box 3378

Honolulu, HI 96801

(808) 586-4337

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Elkhorn Slough
Size and location: Elkhorn Slough winds between Santa Cruz and Monterey, California, covering a 

distance of approximately 11 kilometers (7 miles). Its watershed encompasses 1010 hectares) 2500 acres 

of salt marsh, mudflat, and tidal channels and is the largest wetland in central California. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The project is supported by the following grants: a 604(b) grant for 

planning innovative watershed management planning approach and 319(h) and Near Coastal Waters 

grants that support implementation of innovative agricultural pollution prevention practices focusing on 

pesticide use reduction. Staff support consists of limited technical and organizational assistance, partly 

through an Intergovernmental Personnel Agreement (IPA) that supports Elkhorn Slough activities related 

to the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary Project. 

Organization that initiated project:

Elkhorn Slough Foundation 

Major environmental problems:

● Overgrazing 

● Erosion 

● Nonpoint source pollutants 

● Pesticide runoff 

Actions taken or proposed: EPA is funding several projects to demonstrate the restoration of native 

vegetation on formerly overgrazed lands in this coastal watershed and to implement nonpoint source best 

management practices. In addition, the project includes a survey of restoration needs and livestock 

impacts in the Elkhorn Slough watershed (the Slough). 

Many entities are carrying out projects at Elkhorn Slough. The Slough is a National Estuarine Research 

Reserve, designated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and is managed by the 

California Department of Fish and Game. The California State Water Resources Control Board is 

managing a Clean Water Act section 604(b) project studying runoff from strawberry fields. The Nature 

Conservancy recently purchased a large parcel near the site of this project and is planning restoration 

efforts. 

The Elkhorn Slough Foundation, a nonprofit environmental organization focusing on restoration of the 

watershed, is receiving assistance for surveys and educational activities from Moss Landing Marine 

Laboratory graduate students. Additional funds to augment aerial photo costs have also been acquired. 

Stakeholders:

California Coastal Commission 

California Coastal Conservancy 
California Department of Fish and Game 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

California State Water Resources Control Board 

Elkhorn Slough Foundation 

Local farmers 

Local governments 

Local industry 

Moss Landing Marine Lab 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

The Nature Conservancy 

University of California-Santa Cruz 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Suzanne Marr

U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-1)

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

(415) 744-1974

FAX: (415) 744-1078

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Klamath Basin
Size and location: The Klamath Basin ecosystem covers an area of 20,700 square kilometers (8003 

square miles) in south-central Oregon and northwestern California. In Oregon, the basin covers 14,700 

square kilometers (5676 square miles) primarily in Klamath County, with smaller areas in Jackson, 

Josephine, and Lake Counties. Three river systems in the Upper Klamath Basin discharge to Upper 

Klamath Lake, including the Wood, Williamson, and Sprague Rivers. The Upper Klamath Lake is a 

large, shallow lake (36,360 hectares/90,000 acres, 2.4-meter/7.9-foot average depth). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided the following grants: a 319(h) grant for agricultural best 

management practice implementation in high-priority tributary watersheds and establishment of a 

comprehensive geographic information system (GIS) watershed data base (with training and equipment 

for use at local level; Clean Lakes Water Quality Assessment grant funds for the Klamath Tribe Fish and 

Wildlife Section to complete a water quality study of Upper Klamath Lake; 104(b)(3) total maximum 

daily load (TMDL) mini-grant for TMDL development and staff; and 319 grants that fund state staff 

working intensively in the basin. EPA staff have provided technical assistance in the development of 

watershed assessments related to FEMAT (the President's Forestry Initiative), coordinating cross-state 

communication. 

Organizations that initiated project:

The Klamath Tribe 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Major environmental problems:

● Habitat degradation resulting in the listing of two endangered species Lost River sucker (Deltistes 

luxatus) and shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) 

● Water quality degradation and degradation of wildlife habitat caused by traditional forestry 

practices including large areas of clear-cuts 

● Declines in anadromous fish populations including the chinook salmon due to elevated 

temperature, sedimentation, and blockage of migration pathways 

● Excessive upstream withdrawals, resulting in low river flows over the past several years 

● Diversion of 61,650 hectare-meter (500,000 acre-feet) of water in the Upper Klamath Basin to 

irrigate 90,900 hectares (225,000 acres) of hay, potatoes, and sugar beets 

● Loss of wetlands to agricultural uses (a conversion that has been linked to water quality and 

riparian degradation and wildlife habitat destruction) 

● Point source discharges 

● Questionable application of toxic chemicals, including pesticides, that have the potential to affect 

salmonids, endangered species (fish and wildlife), and nontargeted aquatic invertebrates 

Actions taken or proposed: The Department of the Interior has formed the Klamath Basin Ecosystem 

Restoration Office. This office is staffed by both the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and is based in Klamath Falls, Oregon. The Bureau of Land Management purchased the 
Wood River Ranch, a significant land acquisition adjacent to the Wood River at the north end of Agency 

Lake. 

A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has been formed to discuss and evaluate all studies currently 

under way in the Klamath Basin. TAC members include federal, state, and local agency personnel. 

Several state and federal agencies have initiated an investigation of the application of toxic chemicals, 

including pesticides, that have the potential to affect salmonids, endangered species, and aquatic 

invertebrates. 

Stakeholders:

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

City of Klamath Falls plus other point source dischargers 

Hunting groups 

Klamath Tribe 

Local ranchers/farmers 

Nonconsumptive resource users 

Several tribes in California 

Sport and commercial fishing interests 

Timber interests 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contacts:

Steve Lewis, Manager

USFWS

Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office

6600 Washburn Way

Klamath Falls, OR 97603-9365
Charles E. Kimbol, Sr., Tribe Chairman

Craig Bienz, Chief Biologist

Klamath Tribe

P.O. Box 436

Chiloquin, OR 97624

Tom Robertson

U.S. EPA Region X

Oregon Operations Office

811 SW Sixth Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97204

(503) 326-3250

FAX: (503) 326-3399

Michael Ryan

Project Manager

Bureau of Reclamation

Jane Freeman

U.S. EPA Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street (W-3-1)

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 744-1978

FAX: (415) 744-1078

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Malibu Creek
Size and location: Malibu Creek is located northwest of Los Angeles, California. The creek and its 

watershed span approximately 282 square kilometers (109 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: The project is supported by the following grants: a Near Coastal Waters 

grant for stream restoration and a 604(b) planning grant for a coordinator position. Staff support consists 

of limited participation in project planning, coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (watershed modeling work), and support through the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program 

Topanga-Las Virgenes Resource Conservation District 

Major Environmental Problems:

● Water quality and quantity 

● Habitat loss 

● Urban runoff 

● Confined animal runoff 

● Wastewater discharge 

● Accelerated sediment loadings 

● Nutrients 

● Coliform/pathogens 

Actions taken or proposed: Efforts to protect this watershed have been under way since the 1970s and 

were accelerated recently when the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, the local National Estuary 

Program, identified the watershed as one of the major contributors of pollution to the bay. These efforts 

were augmented by the Local Resource Conservation District, which requested and received watershed 

planning assistance through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Small Watershed Program (resulting in 

a Natural Resources Plan study) and by the state. Because the lagoon is not meeting state water quality 

standards, the state targeted it for early action in developing total maximum daily loads and waste load 

allocations. 

Project efforts resulted in a watershed plan with 111 agreed-upon recommendations, which since have 

been consolidated into 44 actions. The stakeholder group has formed an implementation committee, the 

Malibu Creek Watershed Advisory Council, to carry out these actions. EPA will work with the state and 

local stakeholders to identify funds for implementation. The Resource Conservation District recently 

received a Clean Water Act section 319 grant to address confined animal runoff and to restore a section 

of stream bank in the watershed that was damaged by development. With EPA's assistance, the 

stakeholder group is developing a comprehensive watershed monitoring plan. 

Stakeholders:
California Fish and Game 

California Parks and Recreation 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

California State Coastal Commission 

Coastal Conservancy 

Environmental groups 

Local dischargers, developers, and home-owner groups 

Local municipal governments 

Local Resource Conservation District 

Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project 

Surfer groups 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Ventura and Los Angeles Counties 

Contacts:

Heather Trim

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board

101 Centre Plaza Drive

Monterey Park, CA 91754-2156

(213) 266-7500

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Morro Bay
Size and location: Morro Bay has an approximately 259-square-kilometer (100-square-mile) watershed 

located on the California coast, about 242 kilometers (150 miles) north of Los Angeles. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The project is supported by the following grants: 319 grants for agricultural 

and grazing BMP implementation projects, special 319 grants for nonpoint source (NPS) national 

monitoring project (long-term project to study the effectiveness of NPS controls), 604(b) planning grants, 

319 funding for state staff coordinators, and a Near Coastal Waters grant for NPS controls. 

Organizations that initiated project:

California State Coastal Commission 

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Major environmental problem:

● Sedimentation 

Actions taken or proposed: To protect this endangered area, EPA supports the Morro Bay Watershed 

Project with both funding and technical guidance concerning nonpoint source monitoring and 

implementation of nonpoint source controls. Clean Water Act section 319 grant funds are being used to 

implement erosion control and sediment retention practices on several farms and ranches in the 

watershed. A National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program project measures the effectiveness of 

agricultural and silvicultural best management practices in reducing sedimentation. In addition, the 

Regional Water Board has initiated an effort to closely coordinate implementation of other water quality 

programs, including underground tank remediation, storm water, and point source permitting on a 

watershed basis. 

Stakeholders:

California Polytechnic Institute-San Luis Obispo 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

California State Coastal Commission 

Local interest groups and landowners 

Resource Conservation District 
Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Howard Kolb

Central Coast Regional Water

Quality Control Board

81 Higuera Street, Suite 200

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5414

(805) 549-3332

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Oak Creek Watershed
Size and location: Oak Creek Watershed covers 1106 square kilometers (427 square miles) in Arizona. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The project is supported by the following grants: 319 grants for nonpoint 

source (urban runoff and recreation) BMPs, special 319 grant for NPS national monitoring project, 319 

funding for state staff providing watershed project coordination. Staff support consists of assistance in 

the design of national monitoring program and NPS projects, TMDL review, and NPDES permit issues. 

Organization that initiated project:

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Major environmental problems:

● High bacteria levels 

● High nutrient levels 

● Sedimentation 

Actions taken or proposed: The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality initiated the Oak Creek 

project to provide an analytical, planning, and implementation framework to address water quality 

problems associated with point and nonpoint pollutant discharges. Oak Creek was selected as a National 

Nonpoint Source Monitoring project site for long-term monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of 

nonpoint source best management practices. A variety of practices to control runoff from paved surfaces 

will be implemented. 

Stakeholders:

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

Local county government 

Local environmental groups and landowners 

Northern Arizona Council of Governments 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:
Chris Heppe

U.S. EPA Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 744-2009

FAX: (415) 744-1078

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

San Luis Rey River
Size and location: The San Luis Rey (SLR) River is located in San Diego County in California. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The project is supported by the following grants: 104(b) wetlands grants 

for comprehensive watershed planning and management and 604(b) grants for watershed planning. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

San Diego County Board of Supervisors 

Major environmental problems:

● Sand and gravel-mining operations 

● Agricultural activities 

● Urban development 

● Impaired streams and riparian areas 

Actions taken or proposed: The California Coastal Conservancy, the San Diego County Department of 

Parks and Recreation, and the San Diego County Planning Department are working together to develop a 

Multi-objective River Corridor Management Plan for long-term management of the San Luis Rey River. 

The goals for this plan include better coordination of enforcement, restoration, and development 

activities for maximization of wetlands protection and enhancement. In addition, EPA's Wetlands 

Research Program is sponsoring research to develop approaches for identifying and prioritizing sites for 

ecosystem restoration. 

San Diego County is involved in coordinating the many interest groups and public agencies in the area. A 

Technical Advisory Committee and a Citizens Advisory Committee have been formed to oversee 

development of the Management Plan. A consultant is working on a resource inventory and an 

opportunities and constraints analysis to be used as the basis for development of the Management Plan. 

The County has completed for the participating agencies' signature a Memorandum of Understanding 

that outlines the agencies' commitment to the project. 

Stakeholders:

California Department of Fish and Game 

California Department of Transportation 

California Division of Mines and Geology 

California State Coastal Conservancy 
City of Oceanside 

Pala, Pauma, La Jolla, and Rincon Indian Tribes 

Rainbow, San Luis Rey, and Yuima Municipal Water Districts 

San Diego Area Council of Governments 

San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation 

San Diego County Planning Department 

San Diego County Rock Producers Association 

San Diego County Water Authority 

San Diego Farm Bureau 

San Diego Gas and Electric 

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Upper San Luis Rey Resources Conservation District 

U.S Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contact:

Stephanie L. Wilson

U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-2)

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

(415) 744-1968

FAX: (415) 744-1078

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Santa Margarita River
Size and location: The Santa Margarita River has a 1920-square-kilometer (740-square-mile) coastal 

watershed and is located in Riverside and San Diego Counties in California. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The project is supported by the following grants: 319(h) for best 

management practices (BMP) implementation to address nutrient runoff from orchards and 104(b) 

wetlands grant for watershed planning. Staff support consists of a regional lead on advanced 

identification for 404 planning, a part-time staff coordinator, an intensive staff-level workgroup to 

coordinate all EPA activity by multiple programs (especially National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES), groundwater protection, monitoring, and nonpoint source), and participation in the 

local watershed management planning process. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Riverside and San Diego Counties 

California State Coastal Conservancy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Endangered wetland and riparian habitat 

● Flooding 

● Development pressures 

● Impacts from channelization of tributaries 

● Wastewater and storm water discharges 

● Nonpoint source discharges 

● Hazardous waste sites 

Actions taken or proposed: The California State Coastal Conservancy, in cooperation with Riverside and 

San Diego Counties, is developing an integrated watershed management plan for the Santa Margarita 

River watershed. This planning effort will take a watershed protection approach to the long-term 

preservation of important wetland and riparian habitats, particularly in the estuary and the Santa 

Margarita River floodplain. Flood control and development engineering design criteria that focus on the 

maintenance of hydrologic balance and riparian and creek values in both the upper basin and the lower 

reaches of the watershed will be formulated. An economic analysis of alternative flood control and 

development design criteria will be conducted. 

A watershed policy committee, consisting of representatives of Riverside and San Diego Counties, 

Temecula, Murrieta, and Camp Pendleton, has been established. Three subcommittees the Recreation, 

Open Space and Wildlife Habitat Subcommittee; the Water Quality and Supply Subcommittee; and the 

Flood Control and Land Use Subcommittee have also been created. 
EPA will coordinate Superfund activities (including an ecological assessment and remediation of 

Superfund sites along the Santa Margarita River), NPDES and 404 permit review, grant funds, the 

implementation of Region IX's Effluent-Dependent Streams guidance, and other applicable water quality 

standard issues in the watershed. 

A technical framework for evaluating wetland functions in the watershed is being developed. This 

framework will be consistent with the hydrogeomorphic approach being developed by a task force of 

scientists under the auspices of the Wetlands Research Program at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Also, a wetlands advance identification planning project that identifies aquatic sites within the Santa 

Margarita River watershed and evaluates whether they are suitable for possible future disposal sites for 

the discharge of dredge and fill material is being conducted. This project will augment the planning effort 

for the Santa Margarita River that has recently been initiated by Riverside and San Diego Counties with 

the assistance of the National Park Service's Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance program. 

Research to support local community planning has been initiated by EPA's Office of Research and 

Development in coordination with the Biodiversity Research Consortium and the Department of 

Defense. The study will examine the effect on regional biodiversity of various scenarios of urban growth. 

Other activities include: 

● Developing a data base that can serve as a focal point for enhancing all the water programs in the 

watershed. 

● Conducting a source assessment based on existing information for nutrients and sediments and 

setting target reduction goals. 

Stakeholders:

California State Coastal Conservancy 

Camp Pendleton 

Local citizens 

Murrieta County 

National Park Service 

Riverside and San Diego counties 

State of California 
Temecula County 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Mary Butterwick

U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-2)

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

(415) 744-1985

FAX: (415) 744-1078

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Santa Monica Bay
Size and location: The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (SMBRP) stretches from the Ventura 

County line to Point Fermin at the southernmost tip of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, covering 

approximately 80 kilometers (50 miles) of coastline. Santa Monica Bay's watershed covers 1072 square 

kilometers (414 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: The project is supported by the following grants: National Estuary Program 

(NEP) planning grants, 604 planning grants focused on Malibu Creek, a 319 grant for public education 

and outreach programs, and a 104(b) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) project 

to begin coordinating planning and permit issuance by watershed. Staff support consists of extensive 

input to the NEP process and senior management participation on steering committees. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

California State Water Resources Control Board 

Major environmental problems:

● Impairment of water quality primarily due to urban runoff and other nonpoint source pollution 

● Public health issues associated with swimming and consuming seafood 

● Loss and degradation of habitats/ecosystem 

Actions taken or proposed: The Santa Monica Bay was selected for inclusion in the National Estuary 

Program in 1988. In May 1994 the SMBRP released for public comment a Comprehensive Conservation 

and Management Plan (CCMP) that identifies actions necessary for bay restoration and protection. It is 

entitled the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan. The plan, which focuses primarily on controlling urban 

runoff and other diffuse sources of pollution, contains nearly 250 actions. Of these, 73 have been 

identified as "priority actions." The plan provides a strategy for coordinating water pollution control on a 

watershed basis. The following are highlights of the plan: 

● Establishment of a Santa Monica Bay Watershed Council. 

● Implementation of a "mass emissions approach" to control discharge of toxic pollutants from both 

point and non-point sources more effectively. 

● Reduction of hazardous waste from households and small businesses. 

● Best management practices (BMPs) to improve the quality of urban/storm water runoff that enters 

the bay. 

● Full secondary treatment of sewage at the treatment facilities of the City of Los Angeles and 

County Sanitation Districts. 

● Assessment of swimming health risks and a plan to track down pathogen sources. 

● Restoration and enhancement of priority wetlands and other sensitive marine, coastal, and upland 

habitats. 

● Improved public education and involvement programs. 
● Implementation of a comprehensive baywide monitoring program. 

● Adoption of a comprehensive watershed planning and management strategy. 

In addition to developing the CCMP, the SMBRP has undertaken a number of significant projects and 

programs that support and further the goals of bay restoration and protection. They include: 

● Instituted a pilot program for treating storm drain runoff with ozone. (The City of Santa Monica 

and the University of California-Los Angeles Laboratory of Biomedical and Environmental 

Science showed that ozone is an excellent disinfectant.) 

● Issued a Los Angeles County Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Permit that is unique in its emphasis on BMPs. 

● Established new breeding sites for the California least tern, an endangered species. 

● Instituted a storm drain stenciling project to educate the public about the disposal of contaminants 

in storm drains. The project was funded by the SMBRP and carried out by various cities within 

the watershed and Heal the Bay (a local environmental group). 

● Restored the Lower Zuma Creek wetland, lagoon, and sand dunes. 

● Established a "mini-grants" program to provide funding for schools, inner-city youth, 

environmental groups, and municipalities to educate and involve the public in bay resource 

protection and pollution prevention efforts. 

● Designed the first-ever epidemiological study of human health risk from contaminated runoff for 

the West Coast. 

● Performed the first technical study to quantify pollutant loads associated with storm water runoff 

for the bay watershed. 

● Conducted research on seafood contamination and analyzed the sportfish consumption patterns of 

local anglers. 

● Conducted a study to identify and map remaining wetlands and riparian habitat in the watershed 

and identified several sites for possible restoration. 

● Developed a comprehensive and coordinated monitoring program to provide insights into 

regional, cumulative, and long-term impacts; link public concerns with measurable indicators; and 

reduce costs associated with current monitoring practices. 

● Developed the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan. 

Stakeholders:

Area universities 

Bay watershed cities (NPDES co-permittees) 

Heal the Bay 

Los Angeles County 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad 

ministration 

State Department of Fish and Game 

State Department of Health Services 

State Water Resources Control Board 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

University of California-Los Angeles Laboratory of Biomedical and Environmental Science 

Contact:

Cheryl McGovern

U.S. EPA Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

(415) 744-2013

FAX: (415) 744-1078

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Truckee River
Size and location: The 225-kilometer (140-mile)-long Truckee River runs from Lake Tahoe, California, 

into the saline Pyramid Lake in Nevada. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The project is supported by the following grants: 319 grants for nonpoint 

source controls (urban runoff, agriculture) and public education activities (also with Pyramid Lake Paiute 

Indian tribe), 314 Clean Lakes grants for lake assessments (Tahoe and Pyramid) and several phase 2 

implementation projects, 604(b) projects to plan watershed management in several tributaries and to 

develop standards for Truckee River and Pyramid Lake, and a special 104(b) grant for a supports 

coordinator for a lower river habitat restoration project. Staff support consists of a part-time EPA 

coordinator for over 5 years; participation in water quality/quantity negotiations; and extensive 

involvement in standards, total maximum daily load (TMDL), and permit reviews and ground water 

planning. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Water quality degradation 

● Deterioration of aquatic habitat 

● Threatened and endangered fish species 

Actions taken or proposed: The flow of the Truckee River is highly regulated with most of the river 

water fully allocated via water rights. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife uses some of the water to induce 

spawning of the endangered fish cuiui and to provide drought relief. Approximately one-third of the river 

flow is diverted via a dam to Lahontan Valley to irrigate alfalfa and pastures. The watershed also 

supports the resort communities surrounding Lake Tahoe, the greater metropolitan area of Reno and 

Sparks, and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Indian Reservation. 

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe has taken numerous legal actions over the last 100 years to obtain legal 

compensation for the adverse impacts resulting from the water diversion to Lahontan Valley. Lake 

elevations have dropped 80 feet (24 meters), thereby restricting fish access for spawning. The Tribe also 

pressed for efforts to reduce pollutant loadings, to ameliorate elevated water temperatures, and to restore 

the water course. 

EPA initiated the Truckee River Strategy to end litigation, and Senator Reid of Nevada facilitated a 

negotiated settlement accord through public law. EPA coordinates different program activities and 

agencies to focus restoration efforts on the Truckee River Strategy, a holistic watershed restoration 

program. In particular, EPA: 

● Provides grant assistance to a Native American tribe and the states of Nevada and California to 

assess problems, to develop a water quality model, and to implement both nonpoint and point 
source controls. 

● Oversees and approves the development of state water quality standards, total maximum daily 

loads, and storm water and treatment works permits. 

● Funds a grant to explore alternative economic incentives to conserve water and improve water 

quality. 

● Awarded a Clean Water Act section 319 grant to Nevada to establish a water bank that would 

allow residents to donate their water rights to the bank to be used for beneficial instream uses. 

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has assumed the lead for the project and is currently 

coordinating the multiagency effort to protect and restore the river. 

Stakeholders:

California Lahontan Regional Water Quality Board 

Fenley Town Utilities 

Lyon, Storey, and Washoe Counties in Nevada 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Nevada Cooperative Extension 

Nevada Resource Conservative Service 

Nevada Department of Wildlife 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

Nevada Division of Transportation 

Public Resource Associates 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 

Reno and Sparks municipal governments 

Sierra Club 
Sierra Pacific Power Company 

The Nature Conservancy 

Truckee River Advisory Board 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

University of California, Davis 

University of Nevada, Reno 

Washoe-Storey Conservation District 

Contact:

Cheryl McGovern

U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-2)

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 744-2013

FAX: (415) 744-1078

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Verde River Advance Identification 

(ADID) Project
Size and location: This wetlands planning project extends from Sullivan Lake to Horseshoe Reservoir, 

covering 201 kilometers (125 miles) of the Verde River in Yavapai and Gila Counties in Arizona. The 

ADID is a component of a watershed planning effort currently underway that will address a broader 

range of issues throughout the Verde River Basin, which covers 14,100 square kilometers (5450 square 

miles). 

The Verde River has outstanding natural resources of local, regional, and national importance and is 

functioning, overall, as a high-value riverine system. The ADID area includes the following: 

● The only river reach designated Wild and Scenic in the state 

● Extensive stands of cottonwood-willow riparian gallery forest that support a high diversity of bird 

species 

● Critical habitat for razorback sucker, proposed critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher 

● Reintroduction sites for Colorado squawfish and razorback sucker 

● Habitat for 31 special status species. 

● Designated as Resource Category 1 by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

● Listed on Department of the Interior's National Rivers Inventory as one of the Nation's most 

significant free-flowing rivers 

● State priority for river corridor planning. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA entered into an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with USFWS to 
prepare a functional assessment of the Verde River riparian ecosystem. The functional assessment 

provided a technical basis for identifying "suitable" and "unsuitable" sites along the Verde River. A 

104(b)(3) grant was awarded to the Arizona Geological Survey to map the alluvial deposits along the 

river. EPA provided staff support and funding for printing costs throughout the project. The watershed is 

a priority for nonpoint source implementation; several section 319 grants have been awarded in the area. 

EPA is also involved in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and 404 permitting 

and enforcement issues. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Major environmental problems:

● Sedimentation from sand and gravel mining and hydrologic modification problems 

● Polluted runoff from abandoned hard-rock mines 

● Bank stabilization 

● Flooding 

● Threatened and endangered species (including Razorback sucker and Southwestern willow 

flycatcher) 

Actions taken or proposed: EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) recently completed the 

ADID. The final ADID site identifications are described in an August 18, 1994, joint EPA-Corps public 

notice. The ADID identified potentially suitable sites for specific activities involving minor discharges of 

dredged or fill material that have minimal adverse effects on the river. All of the stream reaches within 

the ADID area are generally unsuitable for major discharges such as sand and gravel mining, stream 

channelization, and dredging projects. The ADID also identifies environmental criteria that, if 

incorporated, should expedite the permit review process. 

Goals of the ADID are twofold: 

● To achieve a net gain in the quality and quantity of the Verde River riparian ecosystem in terms of 

acres, functions, and values. 

● To restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Verde River 

riparian ecosystem. 

The objectives are to: 

● Strengthen the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 wetlands permit and enforcement program 

through public outreach. 

● Ensure compliance with CWA section 404 early in the planning process. 
● Seek avoidance of placing fill in sensitive aquatic sites. 

● Augment state and local efforts to develop a comprehensive riparian management plan for the 

Verde River. 

● Encourage restoration efforts. 

EPA and the Corps have conducted several public meetings to discuss the section 404 program and 

ADID, to present the results of the functional assessment of the Verde River, and to solicit public 

comments on options for identifying "suitable" and "unsuitable" sites along the river. Public workshops 

will be held to answer questions and clarify points. 

The ADID involved considerable interagency coordination, a technical evaluation of the Verde River 

riparian ecosystem, and public input at various points throughout the process. 

A couple of follow-up actions are anticipated. EPA intends to take the lead in developing guidance on the 

applicability of the agricultural exemptions under section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, specifically to 

the construction and maintenance of agricultural diversion structures. The Corps is considering revoking 

and/or modifying the Nationwide Permit program for the Verde River to be consistent with the ADID 

guidance. 

Camp Verde will soon fund a flood mitigation study in the Town of Camp Verde. The study will include 

determining the feasibility of channelizing West Clear Creek, a major tributary to the Verde River. Flood 

protection is a priority concern for the Town of Camp Verde because approximately 20 percent of the 

town is located in the floodplain. 

The Verde Watershed Association and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) are 

working with other local stakeholders to assess and remedy nonpoint runoff problems. In addition, EPA 

is evaluating potential environmental impacts associated with runoff from a mine tailing area and 

working with developers to avoid adverse impacts from a proposed development in this area. 

Stakeholders: (partial list, 750 on mailing list) 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Arizona State Parks 

Audubon Society 

Friends of the River 

Irrigation Organizations 
National Forest Service 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Districts 

The Nature Conservancy 

Salt River Projects 

Town of Camp Verde 

Town of Clarkdale 

Town of Cottonwood 

Town of Jerome 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Verde Watershed Association 

Yavapai County Planning Department 

Yavapai County Flood Control District 

Contact:

Mary Butterwick

U.S. EPA Region IX (W-3-2)

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

(415) 744-1985

FAX: (415) 744-1078

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

West Maui Watershed
Size and Location: This project consists of a series of small watersheds along a 26-kilometer (16-mile) 

stretch of coast on the island of Maui, Hawaii. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The project is supported by the following grants: congressional line-item 

grants for a wide range of watershed assessment, planning, and pollution control projects; a 319(h) grant 

for sediment control projects; and various grants to support a full-time coordinator (EPA 

Intergovernmental Personnel Agreement (IPA)). EPA staff are conducting extensive work to draw 

attention to watershed issues, gain funding, and address nonpoint source and wastewater management 

issues (Underground Injection Control and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System programs). 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Hawaii Department of Health 

Major environmental problems:

● Sediment runoff from agriculture and construction sites 

● Nearshore turbidity 

● Macroalgal blooms and nutrient runoff possibly associated with agricultural runoff, wastewater 

infiltration to surface waters, resorts, and urban areas 

Actions taken or proposed: The algal problem was first brought to EPA's attention by four congressional 

inquiries in the fall of 1991. EPA responded by forming a Maui Algae Team to coordinate with the State 

of Hawaii Department of Health. This partnership drafted a strategy to mitigate the algal problem. The 

strategy is basically a comprehensive watershed management plan focusing on nutrient source controls 

within the watershed. EPA is also working with the Hawaii Department of Health, the County of Maui, 

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on studies regarding the linkage between 

sewage injection wells, nutrient loading to the ocean, and source controls. EPA is funding a local 

watershed manager to facilitate assessment and planning of watershed protection activates in West Maui. 

Through this effort, the Mayor of Maui publicly committed to increased water reclamation and canceled 

plans for new sewage injection wells. 

In addition, local sugar cane and pineapple farmers have begun implementing best management practices 

(BMPs) to reduce sediment and associated nutrient runoff from fields. 

Stakeholders:

Hawaii Department of Health 

Local sugar and tourist industries 
Maui County 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Wendy Wiltse

Hawaii Department of Health

c/o Lahaina Comprehensive Health Center

1837 Honiapiilani Highway

Lahaina, HI 96761

(808) 669-7571

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Region X Projects

Example projects submitted by Region X include the 17 projects listed below, plus its large-scale 

initiatives (see Part I) and place-based activities related to many of the multisite projects (see Part III). 

The map at left indicates the location and distribution of the large-scale and local-scale projects in this 

Region. 

The Region's projects vary in size, in the types of ecosystems considered, in the types of partners 

involved with EPA, and in their goals. All are based on watersheds of various types, including the basins 

surrounding rivers, bays, and sounds. Declining anadromous fish stocks, channel alteration, riparian zone 

degradation, habitat fragmentation, increased sediment and water temperature, excessive water 

withdrawals, toxics, endangered species issues, heavy metals, reduced recreational uses, silvicultural and 

grazing impacts, and exotic species impacts are reported among the problems these projects seek to 

address. Actions taken include developing partnerships with a variety of local, state, and federal 

agencies, industries, private citizens' groups, and other organizations. Depending upon the environmental 

problems present, these multiorganizational teams might identify and assess important or degraded 

habitats; sponsor needed research; monitor and analyze loading rates, pollutant sources, and options for 

pollution prevention; propose development or revision of water quality standards; develop outreach and 

educational programs; or jointly develop management plans. Many of the local-scale projects also will 

enhance as well as benefit from the large-scale initiatives in the Region, which include the Interior 

Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Project, the Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Management Research 

Initiative, and the President's Forest Plan. 

List of sites
Region X projects in the Inventory at this time include: 

● Bear River, ID, UT, WY*

● Chehalis River, WA

● Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, ID, MT, WA*

● Coeur D'Alene Basin, ID

● Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins, OR

● Duck Creek, AK

● Grande Ronde River Basin Project, OR

● Klamath Basin, CA, OR*

● Kootenay River, ID, MT, British Columbia*

● Lake Roosevelt, WA

● Middle Snake River, ID

● Pacific Northwestern Watershed Economic Valuation Project, WA

● Puget Sound Estuary, WA

● Tillamook Bay, OR

● Willamette River Basin, OR

● Willapa Bay Watershed Project, WA

● Yakima River, WA

* indicates projects that involve land in more than one EPA Region. Projects that extend across Regional 

boundaries are summarized under each Region in which they occur. 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Bear River

Size and location: Bear River has a 19,700- square-kilometer (7600-square-mile) watershed located in 
Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided technical assistance, funding, and participation in 

coordination committees. 

Organization that initiated project:

Utah Division of Water Resources 

Major environmental problems:

● Soil erosion, increased sediment loadings, coliforms, and high nutrient loadings due to animal 

feeding operations, dairies, urban development, roads, oil and gas exploration, and silviculture 

● Riparian vegetation removal 

● Stream channelization 

● Degraded stream channels and stream banks 

Actions taken or proposed: Interest in increasing the use of the river as a drinking water source for the 

growing urban population in the lower basin and along the Wasatch Front prompted the Utah Legislature 

to enact the Bear River Development Act and fund a Bear River water development and management 

plan. The effort is to address both water development and water quality issues with a water quality plan 

that includes a broad-reaching analysis of pollutant loading to the river as well as chemical, biological, 

and physical habitat assessments. Because the Bear River encompasses Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, a 

regional planning effort has been initiated. The purpose of the regional effort is to share information, 

coordinate planning efforts, and promote "grass roots" direction and participation. The Bear River 

Watershed Water Quality Coordination Committee is coordinating an array of water projects in the Bear 

River Basin initiated by different organizations. 

For example, the State of Utah, EPA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) initiated a 

watershed restoration project on the Little Bear River (one of the major tributaries in the basin), using 

funds from USDA and EPA. The project includes stream channel and riparian habitat restoration, land 

management, and animal waste treatment actions. Now underway in Wyoming are several additional 

nonpoint source projects aimed at restoring tributary streams that have been impacted by channelization, 

stream bank modification, and riparian habitat loss. 

These "on-the-ground" demonstration projects are helping to generate enthusiasm for more cooperative 

efforts. 

Stakeholders:

Bear Lake Regional Commission 
Bear River Resource Conservation and Development Council 

Idaho Division of Environmental Quality 

Idaho Fish and Game Department 

Local citizen groups 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

Utah Department of Agriculture 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Utah Division of Water Resources 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

Utah Power and Light 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Contact:

Barbara Russell

Bear River Resource Conservation and Development Council

1260 N. 200 East, Suite 4

Logan, UT 84321

(801) 753-3871
FAX: (801) 753-4037

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Chehalis River

Size and location: The Chehalis River has a 6840-square-kilometer (2660-square-mile) drainage basin, 
located midway along the western Washington State coast. This includes the entire Chehalis River 

watershed, minus the Grays Harbor estuary. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding for various projects within the Chehalis River 

basin. 

Organization that initiated project:

Chehalis River Council (CRC) 

Major environmental problems:

● Bacteria 

● Temperature 

● Dissolved oxygen 

● Siltation 

● Suspended sediments 

● Phosphorus 

Actions taken or proposed: A plan has been developed and is in place for protecting and restoring the 

Chehalis River basin. Funding to implement the plan is currently being sought. Actions to be taken once 

funding has been obtained include: 

● An economic feasibility study for a biowaste processing facility to remove waste streams. TriCounty BioProducts, a group of dairy farmers, and other interested citizens and agricultural 

interests will manage the study. 

● Ground water monitoring studies of areas affected by fecal coliform and nitrates. The county is 

already doing some work on this. 

● Education and outreach to teach people about environmental problems and their relationship to 

ecosystems. 

Actions that have already been taken or are under way in the Chehalis River Basin include: 

● A nonpoint source pollution plan was completed by consensus of river basin users in December 

1992. 

● The Chehalis Basin Resources Alliance (a nonprofit organization not eligible for tax-deductible 

gifts) was formed for fund raising and grant application for CRC. 

● The Chehalis Basin Resource Trust (a nonprofit organization eligible for tax- deductible gifts, 

easements, and bequests) was formed. 

● Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) is performing a total maximum daily load study of 

the middle Chehalis River and Black River, a tributary, and began a wasteload allocation process 

in fiscal year 1994. 
● Ecology (with EPA funding) has developed a proposal to use the Chehalis River system to test a 

trading scheme between point and nonpoint sources to improve water quality. 

● Dillenbaugh Creek Model Watershed project was begun by the Lewis County Conservation 

District. 

● A basinwide private well water testing program is under way through Centralia College. 

The Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force, a nonprofit group, is developing and implementing a $20 

million fisheries (salmon and steelhead) restoration plan for the Chehalis River Basin. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service funded 21 projects (primarily habitat restoration) in fiscal year 1992, some of which 

were completed in fiscal year 1993. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural interests 

Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force 

Chehalis River Council 

Cities and counties in the basin 

Columbia/Pacific Resource Conservation and Development 

Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation 

Conservation districts 

Environmental groups 

Fish Growers Association 

Fisheries interests 

Grays Harbor Conservation District 

Indian tribes in the basin including the Quinault Indian Tribe and the Chehalis Indian Tribe 

Lewis County Cattlemans Association 

Lewis County Conservation District 
Timber interests 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

Universities 

Washington Department of Ecology 

Washington Environmental Council 

Washington State Department of Fisheries 

Washington State University Cooperative Extension 

Contact:

Dave Palmer, Chairman

Chehalis River Council

P.O. Box 586

Ockville, WA 98568

(206) 273-8117

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed

Size and location: The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed covers 67,000 square kilometers (26,000 
square miles) in Montana, Idaho, and Washington. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding and technical support for various projects in the 

watershed. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Congress 

Major environmental problems:

● Nutrients from sources including irrigated agriculture, septic tanks, and municipal and industrial 

wastewater discharges 

● Heavy metals from active and inactive mining and smelting activities 

Actions taken or proposed: Section 525 of the 1987 Clean Water Act called for a comprehensive study 

of the sources of pollution in Pend Oreille Lake, the Pend Oreille River, and the Clark Fork River and its 

tributaries. Such an undertaking has required help from three states, two EPA Regions, and the EPA Las 

Vegas Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. Using a range of technological tools, the study of 

the rivers feeding Lake Pend Oreille was linked with an analysis of the lake by a project team made up of 

the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Idaho, the Panhandle Health District, the Eastern 

Washington University, the Bonner County Planning and Development Department, the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the EPA Las Vegas 

Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. 

Objectives of the project include:

● Control nuisance algae in the Clark Fork River and Pend Oreille River by reducing nutrient 

concentrations. 

● Protect Pend Oreille Lake water quality by maintaining or reducing current rate of nutrient 

loading from the Clark Fork River and Pend Oreille River. 

● Reduce near shore eutrophication in Pend Oreille Lake by reducing nutrient loading from local 

sources. 

● Improve Pend Oreille Lake water quality through macrophyte management and tributary nonpoint 

source controls. 

Actions include:

● Convene a Tri-State Implementation Council to implement the management plan 

recommendations. 

● Establish a basinwide phosphate detergent ban. 

● Establish numeric nutrient loading targets for the Clark Fork River, Pend Oreille River, and Pend 
Oreille Lake. 

● Develop and maintain programs to educate the public on its role in protecting and maintaining 

water quality. 

● Control Eurasian milfoil (a nuisance plant) by education, rotovation (a harvesting technique), and 

research into alternative methods of control. 

● Install centralized sewer systems for developed areas on Pend Oreille Lake. 

● Institute seasonal land application and other improvements at the Missoula wastewater treatment 

facility. 

● Enforce existing regulations and laws consistently and aggressively, particularly state antidegradation statutes. 

● Establish and maintain a basinwide water quality monitoring network to assess effectiveness and 

trends and to better identify sources of pollutants. 

● Develop and enforce storm water and erosion control plans and county ordinances. 

In addition, Idaho received a Clean Lakes Program grant in 1987 to conduct a Phase I 

diagnostic/feasibility study for Lake Pend Oreille and its watershed. This study will analyze the lake's 

condition and determine the causes of that condition, examine the watershed to determine the sources of 

pollution, and then evaluate solutions and recommendations for the most feasible procedures to restore 

and protect lake water quality. 

In 1993, a Phase II Clean Water Lakes grant was awarded. The Phase II project will translate the Phase I 

recommendations into action. Phase II projects implement in-lake restoration work as well as critical 

watershed management activities to control nonpoint source pollution to a lake. 

Stakeholders:

City of Butte 

City of Deer Lodge 

City of Missoula 

City of Newport 

Clark Fork Pend Oreille Coalition 

Clean Lakes Coordinations Council 

Idaho County Commissions 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 
Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Implementation Council 

Intermountain Forest Industry Association 

Intermountain Resources 

Kalispill Indian Tribe 

Kootenay Tribe of Idaho 

Local citizens 

Missoula City, County Health Department 

Montana County Commissions 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

Montana Department of Health and Environmental Science 

Montana Power Company 

Pend Oreille Conservation District 

Steering Committee for the Tri-State Implementation Council 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Stone Container 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Forest Service 

University of Idaho 

Washington Department of Ecology 
Washington Department of Environmental Quality 

Washington Water and Power 

Contacts:

State: 

Gary Ingman

Montana Department of Health

and Environmental Sciences

Water Quality Bureau

Cogswell Building

Helena, MT 59620

(406) 444-5320

FAX: (406) 444-1374

Local: 

Ruth Watkins

Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Tri-State

Implementation Council

206 N. 4th Ave., Suite 157

Sand Point, ID 83864

(208) 265-9092

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Coeur D'Alene Basin

Size and location: The Coeur D'Alene Basin encompasses 9583 square kilometers (3700 square miles) in 
Idaho. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding and technical assistance for studies in the Coeur 

D'Alene Basin. 

Organizations that initiated project:

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Coeur D'Alene Tribe 

Major environmental problems:

● Heavy metals contamination 

● Eutrophication 

● Threatened water supply 

Actions taken or proposed: Because of the many agencies involved in the restoration efforts for Coeur 

D'Alene Basin, a Steering Committee was created to oversee the basin restoration and policies regarding 

basin restoration activity. 

One major source of basin contamination is the South Fork of the Coeur D'Alene River, which was 

identified as a water-quality-limited segment. Therefore, the State of Idaho must develop a total 

maximum daily load (TMDL) for both the point sources and nonpoint sources in the basin. Another 

major source of basin contamination is the Bunker Hill Superfund Site. Contamination at this site is 

being addressed through the Superfund remedial action process. The remedial actions implemented and 

resulting monitoring data will provide information that can help evaluate clean-up strategies. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural interests 

Benewah County 

Coeur D'Alene Basin Interagency Group 

Coeur D'Alene Tribe 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 
Idaho Department of Land Management 

Idaho Department of Water Resources 

Idaho Fish and Game 

Kootenay County 

Kootenay Environmental Alliance 

Local citizens 

Mining interests 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Panhandle Health District 

Shoshone County 

Three soil conservation districts 

Timber interests 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

University of Idaho 

Contact:
Geoff Harvey

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

2110 Ironwood Parkway

Coeur D'Alene, ID 83814

(208) 769-1422

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins
Size and location: The Coos Bay and Coquille River Basins are located along the southern part of the 

Oregon coast. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided technical assistance and contributed funding for 

watershed plan development, and participates with other organizations in working groups. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Degraded salmonid spawning gravel areas 

● Overgrazing of riparian corridors 

● Bank erosion 

● Elevated water temperatures 

● Degraded commercial shellfish beds 

● High bacteria loadings 

● High rates of juvenile salmon mortality 

● Toxics contamination 

Actions taken or proposed: State and local interests have recognized the major environmental threats 

listed above for some time. In many instances, individual actions had already been planned or initiated, 

but the level of effort and necessary teamwork were not nearly adequate to address the magnitude of the 

problem. EPA approached the lead state agencies to attempt a more integrated watershed approach. 

Stakeholders:

County Department of Economic Development 

Local drainage district 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Forestry 

Soil Conservation District 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Mike Rylko

U.S. EPA Region X

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-4014

FAX: (206) 553-1775

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Duck Creek
Size and location: Juneau, Alaska - 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) long. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided financial and technical assistance. 

Organizations that initiated project:

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

Major environmental problems:

● Salmon habitat, riparian, and wetlands degradation 

● Low water flows and hydrologic discontinuities 

● Stormwater runoff 

● Iron; bacteria 

● Toxics, primarily from the airport 

● Urban development 

Actions taken or proposed:

● Extensive monitoring 

● Comprehensive watershed planning 

● Developing best management practices (BMPs) for dealing with snow removal 

● Systematic replacement of problem culverts 

● Public education and involvement in monitoring and riparian restoration 

● Annual stream cleanup 

Stakeholders:

City and Borough of Juneau 

Fishing groups 

Local businesses 

Local residents 

Several federal and state agencies 
Contact:

Christine Kelly

U.S. EPA Region X (WD-139)

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 9810

(206) 553-1566

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Grande Ronde River Basin Project

Size and location: The Grande Ronde Watershed covers approximately 12,950 square kilometers (5000 
square miles) in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided financial and technical assistance and assistance in 

developing and implementing public involvement projects, as well as serving as a participant in several 

interagency/stakeholder teams for specific issues and resource protection/restoration projects. 

Organization that initiated project: Numerous organizations initiated numerous projects and ecosystem 

efforts in the basin; no clear lead. 

Major environmental problems:

● Habitat degradation of salmon species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

● Very high water temperatures throughout the basin 

● Low water flows and hydrologic discontinuities in some critical areas 

● Wetlands, wet meadows, and riparian degradation 

● High nutrients and sediment from agriculture, grazing, and forestry 

Actions taken or proposed:

● Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs): one on temperature; one on nutrients, DO, pH, ammonia 

● Extensive monitoring 

● ESA recovery and habitat conservation planning 

● Stormwater management planning 

● Comprehensive watershed planning for various portions of the basin 

● Implementation of agriculture and forestry best management practices (BMPs) 

● Riparian, wetland, and in-stream restoration 

● Public education and involvement in protection/restoration projects 

● Water conservation practices 

Stakeholders:

Environmental groups 

Farmers and ranchers 

Local businesses 

Local government 

Native American tribes 
Numerous federal and state agencies 

Timber industry 

Contact:

Christine Kelly

U.S.EPA Region X, WD-139

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

(206)553-1566

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Klamath Basin
Size and location: The Klamath Basin ecosystem covers an area of 20,700 square kilometers (8003 

square miles) in south-central Oregon and northwestern California. In Oregon, the basin covers 14,700 

square kilometers (5676 square miles) primarily in Klamath County, with smaller areas in Jackson, 

Josephine, and Lake Counties. Three river systems in the Upper Klamath Basin discharge to Upper 

Klamath Lake, including the Wood, Williamson, and Sprague Rivers. The Upper Klamath Lake is a 

large, shallow lake (36,360 hectares/90,000 acres, 2.4-meter/7.9- foot average depth). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided the following grants: a 319(h) grant for agricultural best 

management practice implementation in high-priority tributary watersheds and establishment of a 

comprehensive geographic information system (GIS) watershed data base (with training and equipment 

for use at local level; Clean Lakes Water Quality Assessment grant funds for the Klamath Tribe Fish and 

Wildlife Section to complete a water quality study of Upper Klamath Lake; 104(b)(3) total maximum 

daily load (TMDL) mini-grant for TMDL development and staff; and 319 grants that fund state staff 

working intensively in the basin. EPA staff have provided technical assistance in the development of 

watershed assessments related to FEMAT (the President's Forestry Initiative), coordinating cross-state 

communication. 

Organizations that initiated project:

The Klamath Tribe 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Major environmental problems:

● Habitat degradation resulting in the listing of two endangered species - Lost River sucker 

(Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) 

● Water quality degradation and degradation of wildlife habitat caused by traditional forestry 

practices including large areas of clear-cuts 

● Declines in anadromous fish populations including the chinook salmon due to elevated 

temperature, sedimentation, and blockage of migration pathways 

● Excessive upstream withdrawals, resulting in low river flows over the past several years 

● Diversion of 61,650 hectare-meter (500,000 acre-feet) of water in the Upper Klamath Basin to 

irrigate 90,900 hectares (225,000 acres) of hay, potatoes, and sugar beets 

● Loss of wetlands to agricultural uses (a conversion that has been linked to water quality and 

riparian degradation and wildlife habitat destruction) 

● Point source discharges 

● Questionable application of toxic chemicals, including pesticides, that have the potential to affect 

salmonids, endangered species (fish and wildlife), and nontargeted aquatic invertebrates 

Actions taken or proposed: The Department of the Interior has formed the Klamath Basin Ecosystem 
Restoration Office. This office is staffed by both the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and is based in Klamath Falls, Oregon. The Bureau of Land Management purchased the 

Wood River Ranch, a significant land acquisition adjacent to the Wood River at the north end of Agency 

Lake. 

A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has been formed to discuss and evaluate all studies currently 

under way in the Klamath Basin. TAC members include federal, state, and local agency personnel. 

Several state and federal agencies have initiated an investigation of the application of toxic chemicals, 

including pesticides, that have the potential to affect salmonids, endangered species, and aquatic 

invertebrates. 

Stakeholders:

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

City of Klamath Falls plus other point source dischargers 

Hunting groups 

Klamath Tribe 

Local ranchers/farmers 

Nonconsumptive resource users 

Several tribes in California 

Sport and commercial fishing interests 

Timber interests 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contacts:

Steve Lewis, Manager

USFWS

Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office
6600 Washburn Way

Klamath Falls, OR 97603-9365

Charles E. Kimbol, Sr., Tribe Chairman

Craig Bienz, Chief Biologist

Klamath Tribe

P.O. Box 436

Chiloquin, OR 97624

Tom Robertson

U.S. EPA Region X

Oregon Operations Office

811 SW Sixth Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97204

(503) 326-3250

FAX: (503) 326-3399

Michael Ryan, Project Manager

Bureau of Reclamation

Jane Freeman

U.S. EPA Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street (W-3-1)

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 744-1978

FAX: (415) 744-1078

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Kootenay River

Size and location: The watershed of the Kootenay River covers 49,000 square kilometers (19,000 square 
miles) in northwestern Montana, northern Idaho, and British Columbia. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA provided funding for data collection in the watershed, an Adopt-AStream project, and to hire of a professional facilitator. 

Organization that initiated project:

Cabinet Resource Group 

Major environmental problems:

● Threats from silviculture, hydropower, mining, and pulp mills 

● Protection of species of special concern (white sturgeon and bulltrout) 

Actions taken or proposed: The Kootenay River Network (KRN) has been formed and is composed of 

federal, state, tribal, provincial, industry, and citizen group representatives who are interested in the 

Kootenay River basin. The mission of the KRN is to involve stakeholders in the protection and 

restoration of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Kootenay River basin. 

The goals are: 

● Improve communication among government and tribal water resource management agencies and 

public and private interests for British Columbia, Idaho, and Montana. 

● Pursue coordination of efforts and standardization of methods. 

● Develop and implement a basinwide water quality monitoring program. 

● Fully use monitoring information to accomplish proactive, scientifically based water resources 

management. 

● Educate the public and solicit information about water resources issues. 

EPA, the Bonneville Power Administration, Noranda Minerals, and Champion International funded the 

Water Quality Status Report (January 1994), which provides a history and description of the Kootenay 

River basin; discusses current water quality issues, development activities, and aquatic resources in the 

basin; gives an overview of past, present, and potential future environmental issues and problems in the 

basin; and makes recommendations for prioritizing the basin's water quality concerns and critical issues. 

The KRN also received funding to have Adopt-A-Stream Foundation conduct a workshop to train 20 

citizen volunteers in stream monitoring methods and implement a monitoring program. These volunteers, 

called Streamkeepers, are to train others as well. The KRN has also received funding for a professional 

facilitator. 

Stakeholders:,

British Columbia Ministry of Environment 
Cabinet Resource Group 

Champion International 

East Kootenai Environmental Society 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Idaho Division of Environmental Quality 

Kootenay National Forest 

Kootenay Tribe of Idaho 

Kootenay Tribes of British Columbia 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences 

Noranda Minerals Corps 

Panhandle National Forest 

Contact:

Jill Davies

14 Old Bull River Road

Noxon, MT 59853

(406) 847-2228

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Lake Roosevelt

Size and location: Lake Roosevelt, located in north-central Washington, has a surface area of about 324 
square kilometers (125 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided project and financial management. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington State Department of Ecology 

Local citizens 

Major environmental problems:

● Metals contamination in fish tissues and lake sediments 

● Chlorinated dioxin and furan compounds in fish tissue 

● Point source discharges 

Actions taken or proposed: Findings of metals and dioxin contamination in sediment and fish, followed 

by fish consumption advisories, led local citizens to press Congress to appropriate funds to EPA to 

develop a water quality management plan for Lake Roosevelt. Ultimately, Congress provided over $1 

million for the project and EPA dedicated additional funding. Funds have been used for sediment 

analyses; fish tissue analyses; retrospective studies of watershed characteristics, fisheries, limnology, and 

toxic contaminations; limnological work; fish consumption surveys; public involvement; and 

development of a management plan. 

Stakeholders:

Boise Cascade, Kettle Falls 

British Columbia Ministry of the Environment 

Citizens for a Clean Columbia 

Colville Confederated Tribes 

Environment Canada 

Ferry County Commissioners 

Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council 
Lake Roosevelt Forum 

Lake Roosevelt Property Owners Association 

Lincoln County Commissioners 

National Park Service 

Spokane Tribe 

Stevens County Commissioners 

Tri-County Health Department 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Washington Association of Wheat Growers 

Washington Department of Ecology 

Washington Department of Health 

Washington Department of Wildlife 

Washington Water Research Center 

Contact:

Lee Daneker

U.S. EPA Region X

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-1380

FAX: (206) 553-1280
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Middle Snake River

Size and location: The Middle Snake River is located in the Snake River Plain in south- central Idaho. 
Nature of EPA involvement: EPA Region X and EPA Headquarters' Office of Water and Office of 

Policy, Planning and Evaluation are working together with the state and other stakeholders on a 

watershed ecological risk assessment and a total maximum daily load for nutrients. Both of these 

activities are being integrated with the state's development of a nutrient management plan and other 

management activities. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

State of Idaho 

Middle Snake River Study Group (MSRSG) 

Major environmental problems:

● Threatened water quality 

● Aquatic ecosystem degradation 

● Runoff 

● Effluent 

● Riparian/wetland habitat degradation 

● Endangered and threatened species 

● Loss of recreational resources 

Actions taken or proposed: In 1988, EPA became concerned about cumulative impacts to the Middle 

Snake River from existing and proposed hydroelectric projects. As a result, EPA initiated an ecological 

risk analysis of this portion of the Snake River that uses both measurements and models to estimate the 

likelihood of deleterious changes in the watershed. 

In 1990, the State of Idaho designated parts of the Middle Snake River as water quality-limited, thereby 

requiring the establishment of a total maximum daily load. The state then developed a Nutrient 

Management Plan (NMP). Input from industry, environmental groups, and local government will aid in 

defining a pollutant load limit that achieves water quality standards and specifies a clearly enforceable 

allocation of allowable pollutant loadings among the various dischargers. 

Local officials also became aware of the water quality problems in the Middle Snake River and formed 

the Middle Snake River Study Group (MSRSG). The MSRSG has completed a draft Coordinated Water 

Resource Management Plan for the Middle Snake River. The integration of these three efforts (NMP, 

ecological risk analysis, and MSRSG plan) is providing a coordinated approach to addressing water 

quality problems in the Middle Snake River. 
Stakeholders:

B&C Energy, Inc. 

City of Twin Falls 

Clear Springs Trout Company 

Cogeneration, Inc. 

Dairy and feedlot owners and operators 

Hagerman Valley Citizens Alert, Inc. 

Idaho Aquaculture Company 

Idaho Cattle Association 

Idaho Conservation League 

Idaho Dairymen's Association 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation 

Idaho Division of Environmental Quality 

Idaho Power Company 

Idaho Rivers United 

Idaho Whitewater Association 

L.B. Industries 

Middle Snake River Study Group (elected officials and citizens from four counties) 

North Side Canal Company 

Rangen, Inc. 
Twin Falls Canal Company 

Twin Falls County Parks Department 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Contact:

Pat Cirone

U.S. EPA Region X

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-1597

FAX: (206) 553-0119

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Pacific Northwestern Watershed - 

Economic Valuation Project
Size and location: Yet to be chosen by Region X. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) might fund 

development of integrated ecosystem and economic models of the watershed for the purposes of 

integrated watershed management. As a starting point, OPPE will transfer the models developed in the 

Patuxent River Watershed Project to the selected watershed in Region X. EPA would use this model in 

its process of watershed coordination. It would potentially use the model as a process and tool to involve 

stakeholders in developing a sustainable future for the watershed. 

Organization that initiated project:

EPA - Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation 

Major environmental problems: The models will be designed to evaluate the ecological and economic 

effects and benefits of various environmental problems. These include agricultural runoff of nutrients, 

wetland protection, and restoration. 

Actions taken or proposed: None yet. 

Stakeholders:

EPA Region X and by extension the stakeholders of the specific watershed. 

Contact:

Michael Brody

U.S. EPA OPPE

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-2783

FAX: (202) 260-1935

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Puget Sound Estuary

Size and location: The Puget Sound Estuary and its watershed cover several thousand square miles in 
Washington State in the area bordering British Columbia in Canada. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in the Management Committee of 

the program. 

Organizations that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

State of Washington 

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 

Major environmental problems:

● Loss of fish and wildlife habitat 

● Nonpoint source pollution 

● Contaminated sediments 

● Diminished biological resources 

● Diseased and chemically contaminated fish 

● Contaminated (by bacteria) and closed shellfish beds 

Actions taken or proposed: Puget Sound was selected for inclusion in EPA's National Estuary Program 

in 1987. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan was drafted that recommends priority 

corrective actions to restore and maintain the water quality and biological resources of the sound. This 

plan was revised and updated in 1989, 1991, and 1994. 

Stakeholders:

Native American tribes 

Numerous large and small environmental groups 

Contacts:

EPA: 

John Armstrong

U.S. EPA Region X

(MS WD-139)
1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-1368

FAX: (206) 553-0165

Local: 

Nancy McKay

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority

P.O. Box 40900

Olympia, WA 98504-0900

(206) 407-7302

FAX (206) 405-7333

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Tillamook Bay

Size and Location: Tillamook Bay is a large, shallow estuary along the north coast of Oregon. Its 
watershed covers 147,380 hectares (364,800 acres). Five major rivers (Miami, Kilchis, Wilson, Trask, 

and Tillamook) drain the watershed. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In accordance with the National Estuary Program, EPA has provided 

funding and technical and programmatic support and has participated in the Policy, Management, and 

Advisory Committees of the program. 

Organizations that initiated project: A variety of groups in Tillamook County and the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality asked the Governor of Oregon to nominate Tillamook Bay for 

EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP). There has been strong local involvement in the project's 

conception and implementation. 

Major environmental problems:

● Bacterial contamination from human and livestock sources 

● Habitat loss and sedimentation, which are threatening living resources (especially salmon 

fisheries) 

Actions taken or proposed: The Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project got started in 1994. 

Characterization and public involvement efforts have been ongoing. A Comprehensive Conservation and 

Management Plan that will recommend priority corrective actions to restore and maintain the estuarine 

resources of the bay is due in 1999. 

The Methane Energy and Agricultural Development Project, an effort to collect animal waste from 

dairies to produce energy, soil amendments, and nutrient products, has been initiated. 

Stakeholders:

Commercial/recreational fisheries 

Environmental groups 

Logging industry 

Methane Energy and Agricultural Development Project 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Oregon Departments of:
Agriculture;

Environmental Quality;

Fish and Wildlife;

Forestry;

Health;

Land, Conservation, and Development;

and State Lands

Oyster/clam industries 

Residents 

Soil and Water Conservation District 

Tillamook Bay and Garibaldi Port Districts 

Tillamook County 

Tillamook County Creamery Association 

Tillamook County Economic Development Committee 

Tillamook Sanitation Technical Advisory Committee 

Tourism industry 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDA Farm Service Agency 

USDA Forest Service 

Contacts:
EPA: 

John Gabrielson

U.S. EPA Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue (ECO-086)

Seattle, WA 98101-1128

(206) 553-4183

FAX: (206) 553-6984

Local: 

Steve Nelson

Tillamook Bay NEP

P.O. Box 493, 613 Commercial

Tillamook, OR 97118

(503) 322-2222

FAX: (503) 322-2261

Click here to visit Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Willamette River Basin

Size and location: The Willamette River basin is located in Oregon and covers 29,785 square kilometers 
(11,500 square miles). Within the basin are more than 8,050 kilometers (5,000 miles) of rivers and 

tributaries. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided technical assistance for restoration projects, contributed 

significant funding for watershed plan development, and participates with other organizations in working 

groups. 

Organizations that initiated project: A number of local, state, and federal groups are working to align 

their efforts. 

Major environmental problem:

● Development pressures 

Actions taken or proposed: EPA is developing several strategic work plans for the Willamette River 

basin. These work plans include: 

● Riparian and aquatic habitat restoration targeting and implementation 

● Applying sustainability concepts and approaches 

● Environmental justice through reduction of toxic exposure risks 

● Drinking water protection through a pollution prevention strategy 

All work plans include field-level demonstration projects. 

EPA is working with a variety of local, state, federal, and private groups to develop new technical 

approaches for reconciling conflicts between land use and the management of terrestrial and aquatic 

biodiversity. 

Federal Forest Ecosystem Management Plans are being developed for the "key watersheds" on federally 

owned forest lands within the Willamette River basin. More than a dozen "key watersheds" have been 

designated within the basin. Watershed analysis for restoration work began in 1994. 

Oregon is developing state policies and processes for fostering greater local stewardship through 

interagency communication and the formation of local basin councils. 

Six communities within the Willamette River basin are developing comprehensive wetland protection 

plans. Total maximum daily loads are being developed in a number of subwatersheds. 

Many local and basinwide networks have been or are being formed in response to changes in social and 

land use development patterns and the corresponding effects on resource management options. 
Stakeholders:

Local citizens 

Local Soil and Water Conservation Districts 

Multiple state agencies 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Pacific Rivers Council 

The Nature Conservancy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 

Corvallis Research Lab 

Contact:

Mike Rylko

U.S. EPA Region X

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-4014

FAX: (206) 553-0165

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Willapa Bay Watershed Project

Size and location: The Willapa Bay watershed covers 389 square kilometers (150 square miles) in 
southwestern Washington. 

Nature of EPA involvement:

● A Region X second-tier priority watershed 

● Several Near Coastal Waters targeted on Nonpoint Source (NPS) issues 

Organizations that initiated project:

EPA Region X, Water Division, Watershed Section 

Major environmental problems:

● Coliform bacteria in rivers and bay from sewage and agricultural sources 

● Forest, wetland, and marine habitat degradation caused by logging, diking, and other activities 

● Spartina invasion resulting in the obliteration of salmon, crab, benthic, eel grass habitat 

● Application of carbaryl to control burrowing shrimp populations 

Actions taken or proposed:

● Comprehensive watershed planning 

● Implementation of agriculture best management practices (BMPs) 

● Development of pest management plans for shrimp and Spartina 

● Assisting local groups in restoration and stewardship projects 

Stakeholders:

Oyster industry 

Dairy and beef farmers 

Commercial and recreational fishermen 

Timber companies 

Contact:

Elbert Moore

EPA, Region X, WD-139

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206)553-4181

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Yakima River

Size and location: The Yakima River basin is located in south-central Washington and drains an area of 
15,941 square kilometers (6155 square miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided technical assistance and contributed funding for 

watershed plan development, and participates with other organizations in working groups. 

Organization that initiated project:

Yakima Valley Conference of Governments 

Major environmental problems:

● Altered temperature, pH, and in- stream flows 

● Habitat loss and degradation 

● Fecal coliform 

● Fish populations including salmon, other aquatic life, and recreational uses at risk 

Actions taken or proposed: A Water Quality Management Plan that includes basin characterization and 

problem identification, a basin and subbasin action plan, and technical appendices has been completed 

for Yakima Basin. Future work will center on action plan implementation and local government and 

public involvement/ participation. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural, development, and timber interests 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Concerned citizens 

Environmental interests 

State and local government 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Yakima Indian Nation 

Contact:

Judith Leckrone

U.S. EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-6911

FAX: (206) 553-0165

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Part Three: Summaries of Multisite Ecosystem 

Protection Projects and Programs

This third category of projects was added to the Inventory because many submitted projects that were 

place-based and ecosystem-oriented did not seem to fit the large-scale or local-scale categories' focus on 

a single place. Generally, these projects conduct the same kind of ecosystem protection activity at several 

different sites scattered across a region or the whole nation. Beyond the significance of the activity at 

each site, these projects are important to the Inventory because many of them represent programs that 

have already demonstrated that they can accommodate an ecosystem protection approach. 

A single project summary represents each multisite project or program in lieu of repetitive summary 

forms for every individual site. Some of these programs involve dozens or even hundreds of place-based 

projects. In a few cases, some of the best examples of local-scale projects under these multisite programs 

also appear under the local-scale part of this Inventory. 

List of sites:

The multisite projects in the Inventory at this time include: 

● Biodiversity/Habitat Assessment Project

● Clean Lakes Program

● Ecosystem Management Strategy for Compliance and Enforcement
● EPA New England Regional Lead Initiative

● GATF Northwestern Riparian Zone Assessment and Restoration Project

● Gulf Ecological Management Sites

● Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Project

● Mississippi River Compliance Initiative

● Multimedia Project

● Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC)

● Oak-Savanna Ecosystem Project

● OECA/OC Watersheds Initiative

● Pacific Salmon Habitat Recovery Project

● Rocky Mountain Headwaters Mining Waste Initiative

● Targeted Watersheds Project

● TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) Case Studies

● Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Program

● Wetlands Advance Identification Program

● Wetland Restoration Research Project

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Biodiversity/Habitat Assessment Project

Type of sites and locations: Pilot studies are going on in Oregon, Pennsylvania, California, Washington, 

Idaho, and the states bordering Chesapeake Bay. Many of the analyses are prototypes being developed 

for national application at this stage. Also, the project has ecosystem/watershed research in the four 

watersheds draining through Camp Pendleton, California, has completed research on Monroe County, 

Pennsylvania - Poconos, and is initiating a regional-level assessment in the Mojave Desert. 

Nature of EPA involvement: In recognition that loss of biological diversity can be effectively addressed 

only through cooperation of vested interests, EPA has formed a biodiversity research consortium to 

develop the technical information and data bases needed to assess and manage risks to biodiversity. 

Initially, membership in the consortium includes EPA, U.S. National Biological Survey (USNBS), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) Geological 

Survey, U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and The Nature 

Conservancy. Additional organizations will be added, much as the "Partners in Flight" consortium has 

been created for neotropical migratory birds. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems: Traditionally, the management of biodiversity has focused on rescuing 
rare, threatened, or endangered species from the brink of extinction. Huge sums of money have been 

spent on recovery programs for a small number of species. While there are strong conservation 

arguments for preserving these species, the effort expended has been out of proportion to the contribution 

that these species make to the genetic diversity, and therefore the fitness of the biota as a whole to adapt 

to environmental stress. 

The Habitat/Biodiversity Research Program invokes a new risk-based paradigm for identifying those 

areas that have species assemblages which contribute the greatest genetic diversity to the biota of their 

biogeographic regions and then managing those areas to sustain biodiversity. The paradigm is 

implemented in two stages and at two greatly different spatial scales. First, priorities for management 

action are identified by comparative risk assessment across spatially extensive biogeographic regions. 

This permits cost-effective targeting of more intensive diagnostic and remediation efforts, allows 

accurate evaluation of the many species that have extensive geographic distributions, and avoids the 

pitfall of instituting protection at the local level, only to have cumulative effects of actions in the 

surrounding landscape undermine these efforts. 

Secondly, specific remedial action plans are developed and implemented at a finer spatial scale (i.e., 

ecological subregions within a state) than the comparative risk assessment. At this scale, landscape-level 

management approaches are needed. Attention will be directed to ameliorating the adverse effects of 

habitat fragmentation, reducing other forms of anthropogenic stress, restoring habitat, and evaluating the 

land management trade-offs required to sustain biodiversity. 

Actions taken or proposed: Initially, the consortium proposes to categorize and map the species diversity 

and environmental diversity of each of about 12,000 sampling units (hexagons) based on the 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) sampling grid covering the conterminous 

United States. The process will include: 

● Compilation of The Nature Conservancy's detailed vertebrate species distribution and attribute 

data for each hexagon. 

● Compilation by hexagon of attributes of environmental diversity from remotely sensed land 

characterization data (AVHRR, TM, or MSS based, depending on results of pilot studies). 

● Analysis of the species and land characterization data by different ecological weighing methods, 

spatial analyses, multivariate statistical pattern analyses, and protection optimization methods. 

This information, along with stressor data compiled from existing data bases (TIGER; USGS LUDA; 

USDA-NASS, ERS, NRI, FIA; USDI BLM) will be evaluated and synthesized to quantify relative risks 

to biodiversity by region and landscape type. Overall patterns that lead to high importance and 

vulnerability of natural landscapes and biodiversity will be identified. Benefits include: 

● Establishment of baseline conditions concerning species distributions and their relationships with 

environmental diversity. 

● Comparative risk assessment for biodiversity, which identifies priorities for attention by the 
diversity of public and private land managers whose coordinated efforts will be necessary to 

sustain biodiversity. 

● Testing of methods that hold promise for significantly reducing costs of habitat monitoring, 

evaluation, and management. 

Stakeholders:

Land Resource Management Agencies 

U.S. EPA 

Contact:

Eric Preston

U.S EPA ERL-Corvallis

200 SW 35th Street

Corvallis, OR 97333

(503) 754-4459

E-mail: preston@wbmail.cor.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Clean Lakes Program

Type of sites and locations: Over 600 Clean Lakes Program grants have been awarded to 49 states and 

18 Native American tribes since 1976. These grants have been made for the four purposes outlined 

below. 

● (1) Lake Water Quality Assessments - Provide general support for state/tribal lakes programs. 

● (2) Phase I Diagnostic-Feasibility Studies -Define the problems in a lake through an assessment of 

the lake and its watershed and determine the most feasible plan for lake ecosystem restoration. 

● (3) Phase II Implementation Projects - Implement recommendations of the Phase I study, which 

can include watershed nonpoint source pollution control methods and in-lake ecosystem 

restoration measures. 

● (4) Phase III Post-Implementation Monitoring Studies - Support a scientific analysis of various inlake and watershed management activities to determine their long-term effectiveness for 

restoration and/or protection of the lake ecosystem. 

The lakes that are targeted for Clean Lakes projects are based on a state priority list and criteria outlined 

by the Clean Lakes Program Regulations (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart H, February 5, 1980), the Clean 

Lakes Program Guidance (December 1987), and an annual program implementation memorandum. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The Clean Lakes Program is administered by the Office of Water's Office 

of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Watershed 
Branch. Clean Lakes funds are transferred to the Regions, which enter into cooperative agreements with 

the designated state water quality agencies. The state may then enter into sub-state agreements with local 

agencies, universities, and others to implement the project. The Regional Clean Lakes Coordinator acts 

as project officer on each project. The level of EPA involvement varies with each project, but generally 

the day-to-day project activities are carried out at the state or local level. One of the principles of the 

Clean Lakes Program that has proven to be an element of long-term project success is that there is a high 

level of local support and involvement in the project. 

Organization that initiated program: The Clean Lakes Program was established by Congress under the 

1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Major environmental problems: The information that was reported by the states in their 1992 section 

305(b) reports indicates that the five leading causes of impairment to lakes include metals, nutrients, 

organic enrichment/dissolved oxygen depletion, siltation, and priority organic chemicals. Although 

metals were reported to impair the greatest number of lake acres nationally, over 50 percent of these lake 

acres were reported in one state (Minnesota). More states reported problems from nutrients than any 

other single pollutant. Nutrients cause nuisance overgrowth of algae as well as aquatic vegetation, which 

can lead to oxygen depletion via plant respiration and microbial decomposition of plant matter. Thirty 

states reported that siltation impairs their lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. Siltation can smother aquatic 

organisms and their habitats, damage gills in fish and other aquatic organisms, and gradually fill in lakes. 

Priority organic chemicals increased in relative importance as a lake pollutant from the 1990 305(b) 

reports. The sources of these pollutants were reported to be primarily agricultural activities (56 percent). 

Other sources of pollutants were urban runoff and storm sewers, hydrological and habitat modification, 

municipal point sources, and on-site wastewater disposal. 

Actions taken or proposed: The Clean Lakes Program will continue to offer financial assistance (as 

available) to the states to address these problems. The states are encouraged to leverage other funding 

sources to help address lake ecosystem problems. The Clean Lakes Program will also continue to offer 

technical assistance through guidance documents on restoring and managing lakes and support for 

conferences and workshops on a wide variety of lake management issues. 

Stakeholders: Participation in Clean Lakes Program projects has included EPA and other federal 

agencies including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley 

Authority, and the Department. of the Interior. Forty-nine state and numerous local water quality 

agencies, 18 Native American tribes, community groups, universities, private businesses, and citizens 

have also played roles in Clean Lakes projects. 

Contact:

Susan Ratcliffe (4503F)

Watershed Branch, AWPD/OWOW

U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-5404

FAX: (202) 260-1977

E-mail: ratcliffe.susan@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Ecosystem Management Strategy for 

Compliance and Enforcement

Type of sites and locations: No specific sites designated as yet. Some places are planned as part of the 

strategy development. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is 

planning to develop a strategy for Ecosystem Management in Compliance and Enforcement. This 

strategy is being designed to complement and support the Agency-wide efforts on place-based or 

ecosystem management and will identify compliance and enforcement activities for ecosystem protection 

and improvement. In addition, some pilot activities are planned particularly in conjunction with the focus 

on the Mississippi River and the Water Enforcement Division's initiatives on watersheds and fish 

consumption advisories. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Endangered species 
● Ecological impacts from releases to the environment 

● Contaminated fish 

● Fish kills 

● Wetlands and habitat losses 

Actions taken or proposed: A major need is for more comprehensive compliance and enforcement 

approaches for ecosystem protection. Examples of ecosystem protection and improvement opportunities 

using compliance and enforcement include the following: 

● Better use of SEPs for ecosystem protection and restoration in resolution of past violations. 

● Ecosystem protection from agricultural impacts by using localized bulletins, advisories, and label 

restrictions. 

● Endangered species protection. 

● Establishing compliance assistance centers for various sectors of the regulated community and 

providing outreach with clean-up information to groups of pollutant releasers. 

● Identifying areas where more requirements are needed. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural groups and interest 

Environmental Conservation and Recreation groups 

EPA Regions 

Farmers 

Industry 

Public 

State and local governments 

Other federal agencies 

Contact:

Walter Brodtman (2225A)

U.S. EPA OECA

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4181

FAX: (202) 564-0028

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

EPA New England Regional Lead 

Initiative

Type of sites and locations: New England Region including the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, 

Maine, New Hampshire. Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Developing and implementing a regional strategy in partnership with state 

and local governments, community groups, and grassroots organizations that focuses on education and 

outreach, monitoring and mapping, training, state and federal coordination, and enforcement. Certain 

facets of regional activities have place-based components, such as the examples listed below. 

Organization that initiated project:

EPA New England 

Major environmental problem: In EPA New England's comparative risk analyses, lead was one of the 

top three environmental health threats facing New England. The 1990 Census indicates more than 51 

percent of New England housing stock was built prior to the 1978 ban on lead in paint, suggesting this 

housing might contain lead-based paint, as do residential soils surrounding homes where exterior leadbased paint was used. 
Actions taken or proposed:

● Established in November 1992 and continuing support to the New England Lead Coordinating 

Committee (NELCC) quarterly meetings composed of State health and environmental contacts 

and representatives as well as representatives from Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, U.S. Public Health Service, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

● Award grants to community-based organizations for lead poisoning prevention education in highrisk communities. 

● Education and outreach to day care centers and English as a second language programs 

throughout New England under way. 

● Pilot training and economic development project at Roxbury Community College linking highrisk communities with lead professions training and job opportunities. 

● Develop and conduct intensive lead source data collection and mapping project in East 

Providence in conjunction with the City of East Providence and Rhode Island Department of 

Health. Plot products and software support provided to partner communities. 

Stakeholders:

Children under six most affected by lead, particularly children in low-income and minority communities 

Homeowners and tenants 

Parents of children, families 

State health and environmental agencies 

Contact person:

Ann Carroll

Regional Lead Coordinator

EPA New England - RDA

JFK Federal Building

Boston, MA 02130

(617) 565-3411

FAX: (617) 565-3415

E-mail: carroll.ann@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

GATF Northwestern Riparian Zone 

Assessment and Restoration Project

Type of sites and locations: Project includes several medium to large watersheds in Oregon, 

Washington, and Idaho known to be high-priority river systems for restoration of cold-water aquatic 

communities and in particular their historically significant wild salmon stocks. The rivers are the Grande 

Ronde (OR), John Day (OR), Yakima (WA), Umpqua (OR), Imnaha (OR), Tucannon (WA), Lolo Creek 

(ID), and Asotin Creek (WA). These areas were selected after consulting with several federal and state 

agencies and the Columbia River Tribes to identify their high-priority waterbodies. 

Nature of EPA involvement: This is an EPA-led multiagency project. The EPA project is one of eight 

programs in eight civilian agencies funded through the Department of Defense's Environmental Program, 

Government Applications Task Force (GATF). At the direction of Congress, this program's purpose is to 

use advanced technologies to provide improved support to environmental missions of several federal 

agencies. 

Organization that initiated project:

EPA Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 

Major environmental problem: One of the biggest ecological problems in the watersheds of the Pacific 
Northwest is overwarming of waterbodies due to removal of the shade-producing riparian (streamside) 

vegetation that keeps streams cool. Temperature stress results in failure to attain state water quality 

standards protective of cold-water biota in many rivers throughout the region. Due to multiple adverse 

effects, including the effects of elevated water temperature, an immediate threat faces Pacific salmon 

populations in their spawning grounds. In fact, water temperatures of 25 degrees C (77 degrees F) can be 

lethal to adult salmon, and other life cycle stages experience lethal or sublethal effects at even lower 

temperatures. The American Fisheries Society assessed over 400 wild salmon stocks throughout the 

Pacific Northwest in 1991 and found most of them under moderate to high risk. Some streamside forestry 

and grazing practices reduce or eliminate shade, resulting in water temperatures that can be harmful or 

lethal to the salmon populations. Nevertheless, ecological restoration techniques can restore shade and 

management practices that retain shade, and stable banks are increasingly being applied on public lands 

and some private lands near these rivers. As grazing, forestry, and agricultural uses also occur within the 

study watersheds, solutions to the problems in each waterbody will require assessing the interrelationship 

of the terrestrial and aquatic characteristics of the ecosystem and identifying the most compatible 

management strategies. 

Environmental managers across this region, however, are not well equipped to monitor, quantify, assess, 

and remediate such widespread problems. It is a scientific and socioeconomic challenge to determine 

where the temperature problems are, what reaches are affected and how severely, what the probable 

causes are in each location, what remedies are available, and where best to restore riparian zones and 

instream habitat in different watersheds and geographic settings. 

Actions taken or proposed: Although not a panacea, the integrative analysis techniques of remote 

sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) have the potential to assist state and federal agencies 

in ecological assessment, restoration planning, and management, where data on large areas are needed in 

a relatively short time frame. The projects at each of the eight river systems will use remote sensing and 

GIS technology to perform screening-level modeling and assessment of the likelihood of temperature 

impairment and will combine these findings with a closer look at the location of critical habitat features 

and potential riparian restoration sites. Modeling will support evaluation of "what if" management 

scenarios involving different patterns of terrestrial vegetation and land use activity in and near the 

riparian zone and the potential effects of these scenarios on the aquatic systems. These analyses will 

provide greater understanding of the exposure to temperature stress from sub-basin to sub-basin and will 

provide GIS-based assessment data to help set priorities for ecological restoration projects that will be 

widespread in the Northwest over the next few years. In doing this, the project will also contribute to the 

information base for determining combinations of multiple uses in northwestern forested watersheds that 

might be compatible and sustainable in the long term. 

Stakeholders: Direct participation in the project has included EPA, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, the State of Oregon, the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, and the 

Columbia River Tribes. A much broader assortment of stakeholders, public and private, are also involved 

with related watershed analysis and management activities in these watersheds. 

Contact person:
Doug Norton (4503F)

Watershed Branch, AWPD/OWOW

U.S. EPA

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7017

FAX: (202) 260-7024

E-mail: norton.douglas@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Gulf Ecological Management Sites

Type of sites and locations: The Gulf of Mexico abuts five Gulf Coast states and has a surface area of 

1,631,700 square kilometers (630,000 square miles) and a U.S. coastline length of almost 2,737 linear 

kilometers (1,700 linear miles). 

Nature of EPA involvement: Funding assistance for all Gulf of Mexico Program activities associated 

with this initiative; providing technical input via steering committees, meetings, and workshops; and 

promotion of the Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS) concept to other federal and state agencies. 

Organization that initiated project:

Gulf of Mexico Program 

Major environmental problems:

● Habitat degradation 

● Impairment of wetland functions 

● Impaired habitat for rare or endangered species 

Actions taken or proposed: In June of 1991, representatives from state and federal agencies, nonprofit 

organizations, and private industry first met to outline the strengths and weaknesses of coastal 
management initiatives and identify action items that would help develop the role of the Gulf of Mexico 

Program in the GEMS concept. 

The GEMS concept aspires to bring an awareness of and support to these special areas via the power of 

multiagency endorsement and participation. Such endorsement is essential in establishing the level of 

public awareness and support necessary to encourage local, state, federal, and corporate entities to seek 

out and leverage existing mechanisms or create innovative alliances. Such a process works through the 

concepts embodied by sustainable development. This process served as a catalyst for the establishment of 

the Graveline Bayou and Grand Bay Coastal Preserves by the Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources 

(BMR). The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assisted BMR in the acquisition 

of and development of management plans for these areas. 

In February of 1993, federal, state, and private organizations established a framework under which the 

GEMS concept will be carried out. GEMS coordinators for each of the five Gulf states, tasked to take the 

lead in compiling a list of prospective sites within their state, were identified. 

In September of 1993, the site identification and compilation phase was initiated. In conjunction with this 

phase, a data base system was established to manage and evaluate information compiled for these sites. 

Stakeholders:

Environmental organizations 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Other cooperating agencies 

State governments in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas 

U.S. Air Force 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Contact:

Douglas A. Lipka, Ph.D.

EPA/GMP

Building 1103, Room 202

Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
(601) 688-3726

FAX: (601) 688-2709

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Project

Type of sites and locations: Approximately 1.3 million hectares (3.3 million acres) of tidally influenced 

fresh, brackish, intermediate, and saline wetlands in 19 parishes in Louisiana. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The Administrator of EPA is designated by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) as one of six Task Force members (along with the Secretaries 

of Army, Commerce, Interior, and Agriculture and the Governor of Louisiana) to develop a 

comprehensive plan for restoration of coastal Louisiana wetlands and to "carry out" restoration projects. 

The act also requires EPA to administer a grant to Louisiana to develop a State Conservation Plan. 

Organization that initiated project: Congress enacted Public Land 101-646 (CWPPRA) in November 

1990. The legislation was initiated by the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana in conjunction with 

Senators Breaux and Johnston. 

Major environmental problems: These wetlands, which constitute about 40 percent of the estuarine 

wetlands in the lower 48 states, are being lost at rate of about 65 square kilometers (25 square miles) per 

year. Human activities such as the construction of levees, dams, and navigation channels; drainage for 

development and agriculture; and natural subsidence of the Mississippi River delta contribute to the 

losses occurring. 

Actions taken or proposed: The Restoration Plan calls for significant changes in management of the 
Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers to increase sediment and freshwater input and restart natural 

processes of land building and maintenance. Projects are identified to reverse hydrologic modifications 

by rebuilding barrier island chains and controlling tidal flows through large navigation channels. Specific 

projects include freshwater and sediment diversions, shoreline protection, hydrologic restoration, and 

vegetative plantings. 

Stakeholders:

Commercial and recreational fishermen 

Eco-tourism 

Hunters and trappers 

Include the human populations that depend on wetlands to provide a buffer from hurricanes and other 

storms 

Industries such as oil/gas, chemical 

Landowners 

Seafood consumers 

Contact:

Jeanne Peckham (6E-FT)

U.S. EPA Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202

(214) 665-8330

FAX: (214) 665-7446

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Mississippi River Compliance Initiative

Type of sites and locations: Various sites within the Mississippi River basin. Locations not known at this 

time. 

Nature of EPA involvement: The Agriculture and Ecosystem Division in the Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) is reviewing problem areas and authorities for resolving problems in the 

Mississippi River basin. The purpose of this review is to identify ecosystem protection and improvement 

opportunities in the Mississippi River compliance activities. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Major environmental problems:

● Impacts from concentrated animal feeding operations 

● Contaminated fish advisories 

● Fish kills 

● Impacts from agricultural activities 

● Wetland losses 
Actions taken or proposed: OECA is collecting information and evaluating problem areas and 

authorities in order to focus on activities on a smaller geographical basis within the basin where 

enforcement and compliance can have positive effects on ecological protection and improvement. 

The Office of Regulatory Enforcement within OECA has initiated a plan for case initiatives in the 

Mississippi River basin in response to an invitation by 17 U.S. Attorneys in the Mississippi River basin 

area for EPA to become involved in enforcement actions in the basin. 

Stakeholders:

Agricultural groups and interests 

Environmental Conservation and Recreation groups 

EPA Regions 

Farmers 

Industry 

Public 

State and local governments 

Other federal agencies 

Contact:

Walter Brodtman (2225A)

U.S. EPA

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-4181

FAX: (202) 564-0028

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Multimedia Project

Type of sites and locations:

North Carolina

Albemarle Sound

Pamlico River

Core Sound

Maryland

St. Martin River

Chincoteague Bay

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA initiated the project, recruited the participants, coordinates their 

activities, participates in sample collection, and performs chemical analyses of biological, water, and 

sediment samples in-house in the laboratories of EPA's Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment 

Laboratory (AREAL). AREAL, the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), and 

participating investigators and agencies have all supported the project. 

Organizations that initiated project:

EPA Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Quality Assurance and Technical 

Support Division, Analytical Materials and Support Branch, Organic Analysis Section 
Major environmental problems: Coastal and estuarine ecosystems are among the most productive of 

ecological systems. Historically, more than 70 percent of commercial and recreational landings of fish, 

shellfish, and crustaceans have been taken from estuaries. In the past quartercentury, slow deterioration 

of water quality in such ecosystems and the increasing prevalence of diseased organisms have been 

observed. 

Crustaceans, including the commercially important blue crab (Collinectes sapidus), are commonly 

affected by pollutants, overharvesting and habitat changes. Observations from preliminary research 

studies as well as fishermen's accounts show an increase in the prevalence of shell disease syndrome in 

blue crabs. This disease has been associated with stressed environments, such as intensive aquaculture, 

impounded populations, and polluted natural environments. It can be experimentally induced by 

exposure to sewage sludge, pesticides, or heavy metals, suggesting its potential as a useful biomarker of 

environmental degradation. 

Actions taken or proposed: EPA's Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory is 

conducting a project to assess the feasibility of using various measures of the health of the Atlantic blue 

crab as indicators of environmental stress. The project will attempt to develop baseline biological data 

using shell histopathology and immune functions of blue crabs that might be rationalized by paralytic 

chemical analyses of tissues and other media. 

Stakeholders:

AREAL 

CDS Analytical 

Chesapeake Bay Program 

Duke University 

EMAP 

Gulf of Mexico Program 

EPA Regions III, IV, and VI 

Delaware 

Maryland 

North Carolina Marine Research 
North Carolina State University 

Other estuarine monitoring efforts 

Versar Inc. 

Contacts:

Joseph E. Bumgarner

(919) 541-2430

Laboratory (919) 541-5001

FAX: (919) 541-1111

Miriam Rodon-Naveira

(919) 541-2435

FAX: (919) 541-1111

EPA/AREAL

MD-78

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 

Consortium (MRLC)

Type of sites and locations: Conterminous United States 

Nature of EPA involvement: Coordinating agency 

Organizations that initiated project: EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

(EMAP); the U.S. Geological Survey's National Ambient Water Quality assessment (NAWQA), Eros 

Data Center (EDC), and North American Landscape Characterization (NALC); and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Change Analysis Program (CCAP) 

Major environmental problems: Project provides geographic information system (GIS) data useful for 

assessment of a wide variety of ecological problems. 

Actions taken proposed: Natural resource (land cover/land use) mapping for United States; development 

of a national archive of multiscale imagery and derivative products. 

Stakeholders:

EDC 
EMAP 

CCAP 

NAWQA 

GAP 

NALC 

Contact: 

Denice M. Shaw, Technical Coordinator

EMAP Landscape Characterization

U.S. EPA

Research Triangle Park, NC

(919) 541-2698

FAX: (919) 541-3615

E-mail: shaw.denice@epamail.epa.gov

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Oak-Savanna Ecosystem Project

Type of sites and locations: The oak-savannas and open oak woodlands of the Midwest are among the 

world's most threatened communities. At one time, prior to European settlement, oak-savanna and 

woodland communities occupied a significant portion of the Midwest, probably from 11 million to 13 

million hectares. Approximately 17-20 percent of the Midwest oak-savannas remain; however, most are 

highly degraded as a result of timber harvesting, overgrazing, agricultural use, fragmentation, and fire 

suppression. Oak-savannas extended from Canada through Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, 

Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA cooperated with the Universities of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and 

Northeastern Illinois and The Nature Conservancy to sponsor a conference on the ecosystem. The 

conference had two purposes: first, to bring the scientific community together to debate the issues 

regarding the viability of the system, the species included, and the steps necessary for recovery; and, 

second, to develop and circulate a draft recovery plan for the oak-savanna system. The draft recovery 

plan has been shared and revised based experience in the field and scientific analysis. Another revision 

will be available at the September 1995 Savanna Conference in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Organization the initiated project: EPA Region V, Planning and Management Division, working with 

The Nature Conservancy and the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and North Eastern Illinois 

University. Support for the effort came from all of the Divisions and Program Offices within Region V. 
Major environmental problems:

● Loss of biological diversity 

● Significant lose of grassland birds 

● Soil erosion 

● Increased flooding in the area of the ecosystem 

● Exotic species 

Actions taken or proposed: A recovery plan for the oak-savanna ecosystem has been drafted and has 

been used by practitioners for over a year. Based on their experiences, the recovery plan has been 

revised. Another revision will also be made available at the Savanna Conference planned for September 

1995 in St. Louis, Missouri. The region is also planning to meet with the leading scientist and the agency 

partners to establish a vision for the ecosystem and to establish goals and objectives. The team will then 

decide on the initiatives that will be undertaken and what each team member can contribute. 

Stakeholders: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. National Biological 

Survey, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Defense, States of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, 

Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri, Ontario, Canada, The Nature Conservancy, volunteer stewards, 

and many local governments. 

Contacts:

Bill Franz

U.S. EPA Region V

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-3590

(312) 886-7500

Fax: (312) 353-5374

Karen Holland

Great Lakes National Program Office

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-3590

(312) 353-2690

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

OECA/OC Watersheds Initiative

Type of sites and locations: As yet undesigned 

Nature of EPA Involvement: The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA) Water 

Enforcement Division and Office of Compliance (OC) are working together to develop a permitting, 

compliance assistance, and enforcement strategy to apply the Agency's various regulatory authorities, in 

conjunction with outreach, in a concerted effort to prevent and/or remediate pollution in various 

watersheds. EPA hopes this strategy will be used by the Regions and states in setting priorities for FY96 

and will support and build on existing efforts at watershed protection. 

Organizations that initiated the project:

OECA and EPA's Office of Water (OW) 

Major environmental problems: Depending upon the watershed identified, problems might include some 

of the following: 

● Nonpoint source pollution 

● National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) violations 

● Permits that are not sufficiently stringent 

● Deposits from air emissions 
● Combined sewer overflows, storm sewer overflows, or sludge problems 

● Hazardous waste storage or disposal violations 

● Misuse of pesticides 

● Inability to consume fish or use water for drinking and/or recreation 

Actions taken or proposed:

● Identification of measurement criteria for identifying troubled watersheds 

● Expedited issuance or reissuance of permits 

● Compliance assistance 

● Public information and outreach 

● Enforcement (both administrative and judicial) 

● Statutory or regulatory changes 

Stakeholders:

Local communities 

Regulated public 

States and Regions 

Contact:

Elyse Di Biagio-Wood (2243A)

U.S. EPA

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-8187

FAX: (202) 564-0018

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Pacific Salmon Habitat Recovery Project

Type of sites and locations: All of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho; major portions of western Montana 

and northern California. 

Nature of EPA involvement: Full partner; major emphasis on aligning fishery and environmental 

agencies' authorities and programs for maximum salmonid benefit, particularly in improving protection 

of critical aquatic and riparian habitat. EPA will play key roles on both the Habitat and Hydropower 

subcommittees. 

Organization that initiated project: Office of Environmental Policy (White House), with lead agency 

responsibilities resting with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

Major environmental problems: Our wild Pacific Northwest salmon are crashing toward extinction. A 

growing list of at least 314 stocks of salmonids (81 chinook, 98 coho, 6 sockeye, 28 chum, 6 pink, 89 

steelhead, and 5 sea-run cutthroat) are at risk within western Washington, western Oregon, and northern 

California alone. 

This decline is symbolic of the pervasive decline of all forms of aquatic biodiversity regionwide. The 

vast majority of the region's river systems are significantly degraded by water quality and quantity 

problems, and all watersheds suffer from significant "ecosystem simplification," causing not just the loss 

and degradation of freshwater habitats, but critical aquatic food chain problems as well. 
No one agency can reverse this decline. Authorities and resources are both incomplete and fragmented 

across all levels of government. Even worse, many agencies have priorities that run counter to salmon 

survival. 

Actions taken or proposed: An Interagency Memorandum of Agreement has been signed by seven key 

federal agencies; implementation is under way. The Pacific Salmon Coordinating Committee has been 

established. Interagency subcommittees are now being established to coordinate key issues (i.e., habitat, 

hatcheries, hydro, and harvest). Interagency teams are also being considered for five major ecoregions 

(Washington Coast, Oregon Coast, Columbia River, and northern California.) NMFS has proposed to 

expand planned status review of nine endangered salmon stocks to include comprehensive status 

assessment of all Pacific salmonids. 

Stakeholders: Everyone. It is almost impossible to find any Pacific Northwest interest (public, private, or 

parochial) that will not be affected by this effort. Protecting the salmon will require fundamental, and 

extremely difficult, changes in how people value and use the water resources in the Pacific Northwest. 

Contact:

Anita Frankel

U.S. EPA Region X

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101 

(206) 553-2963

FAX: (206) 553-0165

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Rocky Mountain Headwaters Mining 

Waste Initiative

Type of sites and locations: The mineralized regions of the Rocky Mountains. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA Headquarters has provided funding to Region VIII for this geographic 

initiative. Regional staff provide oversight to the research, remediation, coordination, and public 

involvement projects funded by the Initiative. Staff are often directly involved in the design and 

implementation of projects. Staff also work in multiprogram, multiagency efforts to address issues 

identified by the initiative objectives that are not necessarily funded projects. 

Organization that initiated projected: The water Quality Branch of EPA Region VIII began the 

initiative. Projects funded by the initiative were begun by universities, other federal and state agencies, 

municipalities, and watershed groups. 

Major environmental problems: Heavy metals contamination of thousands of miles of Rocky Mountain 

streams due to the remains of past mining activities at thousands of sites, and threats from current and 

proposed mining activities. 

Actions taken or proposed: Using the watershed framework of the Initiative, EPA has improved 

participation by stakeholders as well as the multiprogram, multiagency approach to addressing mined 
sites within a geographic area. EPA has developed a partnership network across the mineralized Rocky 

Mountains to share technology, data, experiences, and resources and improve policies to restore water 

quality. EPA has also developed biological indicators for metal impacted sites and is developing 

screening methodologies. Site characterization and remediation at mined sites throughout the region have 

led to improved understanding of what needs to take place before remediation of targeted mined areas 

within defined watersheds. EPA has also experimented with and demonstrated several types of passive 

remedial technologies and is beginning to develop knowledge about their usefulness under certain 

scenarios. 

Stakeholders: Partnerships with the following organizations have been developed through joint outreach, 

research, and remediation projects: 

Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited 

City of Golden 

City of Idaho Springs 

Clark Fork Pend Oreille Coalition 

Clear Creek County 

Clear Creek Forum 

Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 

Colorado Nonpoint Source Task Force 

Colorado School of Mines 

Colorado State University 

Colorado Water Quality Control Division 

Coors Brewing Company 

Kootenay River Network 

Montana Water Quality Bureau 
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 

Sangre de Cristo Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. 

San Juan County 

Salt Lake County 

South Dakota State University 

State of Idaho 

Sunnyside Mining Company 

The Nature Conservancy 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

U.S. EPA Region X 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado 

Contact:

Jim Dunn

U.S. EPA Region VIII

999 18th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202-2466

(303) 294-7030

FAX: (303) 391-6957

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Targeted Watersheds Project

Type of sites and locations: The Targeted Watersheds Project consists of four watershed restoration 

projects located throughout the State of Maryland. The watersheds are the Sawmill Creek (122 square 

kilometers/8.5 square miles of mostly urban area) in Anne Arundel County, the Bird River (68 square 

kilometers/26 square miles) of future growth area with some current mining activities) in Baltimore 

County, the Piney/Alloway Creeks (154 square kilometers/ 59.3 square miles of mostly dairy farming 

and feed- growing areas) in Carroll County, and the German Branch (50.5 square kilometers/19.5 square 

miles) of mostly agricultural, row-cropped land) in Queen Anne's County. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA has provided funding through section 319 of the Clean Water Act; 

and also has conducted regional training workshops for biological monitoring. 

Organization that initiated project:

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Major environmental problems: The purpose of the Targeted Watershed Project is to demonstrate the 

effectiveness of coordinating multi-agency resource management programs, on a watershed basis, to 

restore typical streams leading to the Chesapeake Bay. The project addresses problems of nonpoint 

source pollution through its activities. 
Actions taken or proposed: Baseline water quality assessments have been published for each watershed 

thus far. Restoration education programs are underway. In urban watersheds, several projects have been 

constructed to improve habitat; several major ones (channel and riparian habitat reconstruction and 

pollutant control) are about to begin. In the two agricultural watersheds, there has been a high level of 

farmer cooperation, new best management practice (BMP) construction, and nutrient management plan 

implementation. Trend monitoring and restoration programs are continuing. 

Stakeholders:

State of Maryland: 

● Chesapeake Bay Trust 

● Department of Natural Resources 

● Department of the Environment 

● Department of Agriculture 

● Department of Transportation 

● Local Governments and Soil 

● Conservation Districts of Queen Anne's, Baltimore, Carroll,and Anne Arundel Counties and 

Adams County, Pennsylvania 

● Maryland Governor's Office (Bay Workgroup) 

U.S. Government: 

● Department of Agriculture 

● EPA 

● Fish and Wildlife Service 

● Geological Survey 

● National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Private: 

● Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 

● Chesapeake Bay Foundation volunteers 

● Sawmill Creek Watershed Association 

● Save Our Streams 

Contact:

Stuart Lehman

Maryland DNR

Coastal and Watershed Resources Division

Annapolis, MD
(410) 974-5780

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) Case 

Studies

Type of sites and locations: Over 500 TMDLs have been initiated for waterbodies in 47 states since 

1992, and over 225 have been completed and approved. The Case Studies involve 13 TMDLs, in 

scattered locations throughout the United States, that are unusually progressive in their whole-watershed 

analysis perspective, use of new technologies or methods, and attention to protecting and restoring 

aquatic ecosystems. 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA generally administers the Clean Water Act, and the section 303(d) 

TMDL program, as a state-delegated program with some federal oversight. EPA reviews and approves 

TMDLs developed by states or tribes and has provided technical assistance or funding to aid the 

development of specific TMDLs. 

Combining TMDL development with other assessment and planning efforts such as resource 

management plans, basin plans, and watershed analyses is encouraged. For example, the Clean Lakes 

program (Clean Water Act (CWA) section 314) has coordinated its program requirements with the 

TMDL process so that assessments conducted under Phase 1 of the program may qualify as TMDLs. 

Analyses that qualify as a TMDL may be developed through activities such as CWA section 319 

nonpoint source management programs and implementation projects, Lakewide Area Management Plans 

(LaMPs) in the Great Lakes, upcoming activities under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act 
Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA), watershed analysis/planning under the President's Forest Plan, 

other land management planning by federal or state land management agencies, water quality-based 

effluent limits (WQBELs), and ecological risk assessments. 

Organization that initiated project:

EPA Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Ocean and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed Protection 

Division, Watershed Branch 

Major environmental problem: Traditionally, TMDLs had been developed for chemical pollutants 

typically associated with point sources. More and more often, predominantly nonpoint pollution 

problems such as nutrients, ammonia, pH, and sediment have become the focus of many TMDLs as point 

source controls and improved technologies reduce the contribution of point sources to water quality 

problems in general. Because of the flexibility of the TMDL process, it is possible to develop TMDLs for 

nonchemical stressors such as temperature and habitat alteration as well as the more traditional 

pollutants. In these situations the methods used for reducing the loading may sometimes rely on 

ecological restoration. 

Actions taken or proposed: TMDLs are required by the Clean Water Act for estimating the loading 

reductions necessary to meet water quality standards on an impaired waterbody and recommending 

control measures that will bring about this improvement. TMDLs are applicable to whole watersheds and 

waterbodies impaired by point sources only, nonpoint sources only, or a combination of both point and 

nonpoint sources, and are among the most flexible tools available for managing aquatic ecosystem 

quality. Section 303(d) and the TMDL process provide the legislative and scientific underpinnings for 

the Watershed Protection Approach. 

As described in EPA regulations, a TMDL is defined as the sum of the individual wasteload allocations 

(WLAs) for point sources plus the sum of load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources plus a margin of 

safety (MOS). A reserve for future growth may also be included. The TMDL concept applies to any type 

of chemical, physical or biological pollutant or other stressor affecting the Nation's waterbodies. TMDLs 

span a wide range of sizes and levels of complexity, and although each TMDL will be unique to the 

waterbody and the stressor it addresses, TMDLs must possess certain basic elements to be approvable 

under CWA section 303(d). These common characteristics include being quantitative, model-based, 

focused on attaining water quality standards, and addressing all possible sources of a stressor. 

Stakeholders:

States 

Tribes 

Other federal and EPA water programs are directly involved in TMDL development; the public, 
recreational users, landowners, and practically any other interests may be involved in the process or in 

implementing the plans to reduce loadings and reattain water quality standards. 

Contact person:

Don Brady (4503F) 

OWOW/AWPD Watershed Branch

EPA Office of Water

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7074

FAX: (202) 260-7024

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment 

Program

Type of sites and locations: Four watershed projects across the country are demonstrating how 

ecological risk assessment can add scientific rigor to management decisions and priority setting in 

watershed protection. Watersheds include Big Darby Creek, Ohio; Middle Platte River Wetlands, 

Nebraska; Snake River, Idaho; Waquoit Bay Estuary, Massachusetts; and Clinch River, Virginia. 

Organization that initiated project:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in partnership with local government and private organizations, 

state regulatory and resource management agencies, and federal agencies 

Major environmental problems:

● Changing land use patterns 

● Habitat alteration and loss 

● Point and nonpoint source pollution 

● Overenrichment 

● Hydrologic modification 

● Sedimentation 
Actions taken or proposed: Scientists and resource managers at the local, state, and federal levels, have 

formed volunteer partnerships in Big Darby Creek, Middle Platte River, Snake River, Clinch River, and 

Waquoit Bay to develop ecological risk assessments in these watersheds, (Descriptions of the watersheds 

are provided elsewhere in this document.) These partnerships are highly successful because each 

recognizes that establishing management priorities and options based on a science is essential to effective 

watershed management. 

Each watershed partnership worked directly with the public, local and state resource managers, federal 

agencies, and private organizations to identify common goals for the watershed. The goals were then 

used to design the watershed risk assessment to ensure that the outcome of the assessment will directly 

assist stakeholders in making cohesive and effective decisions for their watershed. 

In addition to providing examples of ecological risk assessments in four watersheds, the case studies will 

demonstrate how to improve the monitoring and assessment process, use scientific information more 

effectively in management priority setting, and maximize limited resources and data in watershed-level 

evaluations. 

Guidance will be produced from this work that is appropriate for use at the local, state, and federal levels. 

The guidance will include information on how to conduct and use watershed ecological risk assessments 

to evaluate the relative and combined effects of human activities on watershed resources, and will 

provide a decision framework for selecting among management options to protect those resources. 

Stakeholders:

Federal resource management agencies 

Federal environmental protection agencies 

General public 

Industry 

Local citizens groups 

Private organizations 

State environmental protection agencies 

State resource management agencies 

Contact:
Suzanne Marcy (4304)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-0689

FAX: (202) 260-1036

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Wetlands Advance Identification 

Program

Type of sites and locations: There are approximately 77 projects (both completed and ongoing) in EPA's 

Wetlands Advance Identification Program (ADID). ADID projects range in size from less than 40 

hectares (100 acres) to greater than 10,360 square kilometers (4000 square miles) and are located from 

Alaska to Florida. 

Nature of EPA involvement: ADID is an advance planning process under which EPA, in cooperation 

with the Corps of Engineers and after consultation with the state, may identify wetlands and other waters 

that are either generally suitable or unsuitable for the discharge of dredged and fill material prior to 

receipt of a Clean Water Act section 404 permit application. While an ADID study generally classifies 

wetland areas as suitable or unsuitable for the discharge of dredged or fill material, the classification does 

not constitute either a permit approval or a denial and should be used only as a guide by landowners and 

project proponents in the planning of future activities. The nature of this classification is strictly 

advisory. 

Organization that initiated project: Program was created through amending Clean Water Act regulations 

during the mid-1980s. 

Major environmental problems: Primary characteristics of areas chosen for ADID are the presence of 
wetlands of unusually high value or quality, an elevated likelihood of negative impacts upon those valued 

characteristics, and the resulting opportunity to provide general information and initiate dialogue in 

advance of specific permit applications. 

Actions taken or proposed: The ADID process generally involves collection and distribution of 

information on the values and functions of wetland areas. This information provides the local community 

with information on the values of wetland areas that might be affected by their activities, as well as a 

preliminary indication of factors that are likely to be considered during review of a Section 404 permit 

application. 

The ADID process is intended to add predictability to the wetlands permitting process as well as better 

account for the impacts of losses from multiple projects from within a geographic area. The process also 

informs the local population of the values and functions of wetlands in their area, and it generates 

environmental information valuable for other purposes. Individual ADID projects have been developed 

throughout the United States, as listed below: 

REGION I

Lake Champlain Region Advance Planning Project 

Leonard Pond Advance 404(c) 

Southern Maine/York County ADID 

REGION II

Hackensack Meadowlands 

REGION III

Cedar Island, Virginia 

Chincoteague Island, Virginia 

Philipsburg/Moshannon Valley, Pennsylvania 

Pocono ADID 

Quakertown Swamp 

Sussex County/Delaware Inland Bays 
REGION IV

Carolina Bays ADID 

Carteret County, North Carolina ADID 

Central Dougherty Plain ADID 

Florida Keys ADID 

Huntsville Area ADID 

Northeast Shark River Slough (East Ever glades) 

Pearl River - Jackson, MS ADID 

Rookery Bay 

Southwest Biscayne Bay ADID 

St. John's Forest 

West Broward County 

West Chatham County 

West Kentucky Coalfield 

REGION V

DuPage County, Illinois 

Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal ADID 

Green Bay Special Wetlands Inventory Study (SWIS) 

Kenosha County ADID 

Kosciusko County ADID 
Lake Calumet SAMP 

Lake County, Illinois ADID (I) 

Lake County, Illinois (II) 

Rock Run ADID 

SEWRPC Corridor ADID 

Streetsboro Project 

Western Ohio/Lake Erie ADID 

REGION VI

Bolivar Flats 

Faulkner Lake 

Lower Pearl River 

Upper Trinity River Basin 

REGION VII

Rainwater Basin ADID Study 

REGION VIII

Boulder ADID 

Crested Butte, Colorado (Informal ADID) 

Jackson ADID (Informal) 

Missouri River Valley Project, North Dakota 

Park County (Informal) 

Salt Lake County (Jordan River ADID) 
Snyderville Basin ADID 

Telluride ADID 

REGION IX

Santa Margarita River Watershed 

Verde River 

REGION X

Albany, Oregon Wetland Conservation Plan 

Bainbridge Island Wetland Conservation Plan 

Cannon Beach Wetland Planning Project 

Clackamas County Wetlands Planning Project 

Columbia South Shore Wetlands Management 

Colville Delta ADID 

Grants Pass, Oregon Wetlands Conservation Plan 

Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan 

Homer ADID 

Juneau ADID 

Lincoln City Wetlands Planning Project 

Mill Creek Drainage Basin SAMP 

Prineville Wetlands Planning Project 

Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis - Phase I 
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis - Phase II 

Rockaway Beach Wetland Conservation Plan 

Roseburg, Oregon Wetland Conservation Plan 

Salem, Oregon Wetlands Conservation Plan 

San Juan County Wetland Conservation Plan 

Springfield Wetland Conservation Plan 

Teton Valley Wetland Management Plan 

Tigard Wetlands Planning Project 

Toledo Wetlands Planning Project 

Warrenton, Oregon Wetlands Conservation Plan 

West Corvallis/Squaw Creek Wetlands Planning Project 

West Eugene Wetland Conservation Plan 

Contact person:

John Ettinger (4502F)

U.S. EPA

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-1190

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Wetland Restoration Research Project

Type of sites and locations: Samples of populations of freshwater wetlands of various sizes in the 

Willamette Valley in western Oregon, east-central Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Puget Sound in western 

Washington, the Upper Arkansas watershed in Colorado, the San Luis Rey watershed in southern 

California, and the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR). 

Nature of EPA involvement: EPA's Wetlands Research Program (WRP) is conducting studies to (1) 

evaluate the ecological performance of restored, created, and enhanced wetlands; (2) develop approaches 

for identifying and prioritizing sites for restoration; and (3) determine possible land use effects on the 

functions of wetlands. 

Organization the initiated project:

EPA's Wetlands Research Program 

Major environmental problems:

● Wetland loss 

● Urbanization 

● Impacts from mining and farming practices 

● Hydrologic modification. 
Actions taken or proposed: The Wetlands Research Program is (1) conducting the work in the 

Willamette Valley in Oregon; (2) cooperating in the design, data collection, and analysis for the 

Pennsylvania, PPR, and Connecticut studies; and (3) providing technical support as needed for the San 

Luis Rey, Upper Arkansas, and Washington studies. Studies in the San Luis Rey watershed are nearing 

completion. The studies in the Upper Arkansas, Oregon, and Pennsylvania are under way. The work in 

Connecticut, Washington, and the PPR is being planned. The study in Connecticut will be in the field in 

the spring of 1995. The study in the PPR will be in the field in the summer of 1996. The implementation 

of the field work for the Washington study is dependent on funding. 

Stakeholders: Potential stakeholders include the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil 

Conservation Service); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; various state agencies; and conservation 

groups, such as Ducks Unlimited. 

Contact person:

Mary E. Kentula

U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory

200 SW 35th Street

Corvallis, OR 97333

(503) 754-4478

FAX: (503) 754-4716

ALL-IN-ONE: kentula.mary

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

Search the Current Protection Efforts by 

State

Select a State to Obtain More Information on Ecosystem Protection Efforts in Your State

ALABAMA 

ALASKA 

ARIZONA 

ARKANSAS 

CALIFORNIA 

COLORADO 

CONNECTICUT 

DELAWARE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FLORIDA 

GEORGIA 

HAWAII 

IDAHO 

ILLINOIS 

INDIANA 

IOWA 

KANSAS 
KENTUCKY 

LOUISIANA 

MAINE 

MARYLAND 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MICHIGAN 

MINNESOTA 

MISSISSIPPI 

MISSOURI 

MONTANA 

NEBRASKA 

NEVADA 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

NEW JERSEY 

NEW MEXICO 

NEW YORK 

NORTH CAROLINA 

NORTH DAKOTA 

OHIO 

OKLAHOMA 

OREGON 

PENNSYLVANIA 

PUERTO RICO 

RHODE ISLAND 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

TENNESSEE 

TEXAS 

UTAH 

VERMONT 

VIRGINIA 

WASHINGTON 

WEST VIRGINIA 

WISCONSIN 

WYOMING 

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

ALABAMA (AL) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● ACF/ACT Comprehensive Study, AL, FL, GA

● Cahaba River Basin Project, AL

● Flint Creek, AL

● Huntsville Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, AL

● Mobile Bay Restoration Demonstrations, AL

● Weeks Bay Estuarine Research Project, AL

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Gulf of Mexico Program

● Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)

● Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale 

Assessment

● Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

ALASKA (AK) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Duck Creek, AK

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

ARKANSAS (AR) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Gulf of Mexico Program

● Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

ARIZONA (AZ) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Oak Creek Watershed, AZ

● Verde River Advance Identification (ADID) Project, AZ

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership Project

● Colorado River Program

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

CALIFORNIA (CA) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Elkhorn Slough, CA

● Klamath Basin, CA, OR

● Malibu Creek, CA

● Morro Bay, CA

● San Luis Rey River, CA

● Santa Margarita River, CA

● Santa Monica Bay, CA

● Truckee River, CA, NV

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project

● President's Forest Plan (Pacific Northwest)

● San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

COLORADO (CO) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Animas River Basin Watershed Project, CO

● Clear Creek, CO

● Upper Arkansas River, CO

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership Project

● Colorado River Program

● Great Plains Program

● Rio Grande Basin Landscape-Scale Assessment

● Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Watershed Project

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

CONNECTICUT (CT) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Long Island Sound, CT, NY

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment

● New England Resource Protection Project

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

DELAWARE (DE) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Christina River, DE, PA

● Delaware Estuary, DE, NJ

● Delaware Inland Bays, DE

● Silver Lake, DE

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System Project

● Chesapeake Bay Program

● EMAP Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale Assessments

● EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment

● Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (DC) 

Environmental Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Anacostia River, DC, MD

● National Capital Area (NCA) Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, DC, MD, VA

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System Project

● Chesapeake Bay Program

● EMAP Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale Assessments

● EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment

● Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

FLORIDA (FL) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● ACF/ACT Comprehensive Study, AL, FL, GA

● Bayou Chico Ecological Assessment, FL

● Bayou Grande Ecological Assessment, FL

● Bayou Texar Ecological Assessment, FL

● Escambia River Watershed Project, FL

● Florida Bay Algal Bloom Monitoring Project, FL

● Florida Everglades Mercury Ecological Risk Assessment, FL

● Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, FL

● Florida Keys Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, FL

● Indian River Lagoon, FL

● Loxahatchee River Basin Wetland Planning Project, FL

● Pensacola Bay Watershed Evaluation, FL

● Rookery Bay Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, FL

● Sarasota Bay, FL

● Savannah River Basin, FL, GA, SC

● South Florida Wetlands Permitting and Mitigation Strategy, FL
● Tampa Bay, FL

● West Broward County Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, FL

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Gulf of Mexico Program

● South Florida Geographic Initiative

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

GEORGIA (GA) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● ACF/ACT Comprehensive Study, AL, FL, GA

● Central Dougherty Plain Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, GA

● Savannah River Basin, FL, GA, SC

● West Chatham County Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, GA

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Gulf of Mexico Program

● Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)

● Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale 

Assessment

● Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

HAWAII (HI) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Ala Wai Canal, HI

● West Maui Watershed, HI

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

IDAHO (ID) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Bear River, ID, UT, WY

● Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, ID, MT, WA

● Coeur D'Alene Basin, ID

● Kootenay River, ID, MT, British Columbia

● Little Bear River, UT

● Middle Snake River, ID

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

ILLINOIS (IL) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Cache River, IL

● Lake Michigan, IL, IN, MI, WI

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO

● Mississippi River Gateway Project, IL, MO

● Southeast Chicago Urban Environmental Initiative, IL

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Lakes Program

● Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency Cooperation on Ecosystem Management (ICEM)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

INDIANA (IN) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Lake Michigan, IL, IN, MI, WI

● Northwest Indiana Environmental Initiative, IN

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Lakes Program

● Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency Cooperation on Ecosystem Management (ICEM)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

IOWA (IA) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Beeds Lake, IA

● Big Spring Basin, IA

● Centerville Reservoirs Project, IA

● Clear Lake, IA

● Iowa Great Lakes, IA

● Omaha Stretch of the Missouri River, IA, NE

● Pine Creek, IA

● Storm Lake Project, IA

● Upper Big Mill Creek, IA

● Walnut Creek Prairie Restoration Project, IA

● Walnut Creek Watershed Project, IA

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Plains Program
● Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) Ecosystem Assessment

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

KANSAS (KS) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Cheyenne Bottoms Wetland Project, KS

● Hillsdale Reservoir, KS

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Plains Program

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

KENTUCKY (KY) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO

● Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV

● West Kentucky Coalfield Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, KY

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Gulf of Mexico Program

● Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

LOUISIANA (LA) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary, LA

● Lake Pontchartrain Basin, LA

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO

● Tangipahoa River, LA

● Tensas River Basin Initiative, LA

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Gulf of Mexico Program

● Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

MAINE (ME) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Casco Bay Estuary Project, ME

● Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Ecological Risk Assessment, NH, ME

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment

● Gulf of Maine Program

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

MARYLAND (MD) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Anacostia River, DC, MD

● Maryland's Atlantic Coastal Bays, MD

● National Capital Area (NCA) Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, DC, MD, VA

● Patuxent River Watershed, MD

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System Project

● Chesapeake Bay Program

● EMAP Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale Assessments

● EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment

● Mid-Atlantic Highlands Program (MAHA)

● Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)

● Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)

● Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale 
Assessment

● Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

MASSACHUSETTS (MA) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Blackstone River, MA

● Buzzards Bay, MA

● Green Spaces Healthy Places Project, MA

● Massachusetts Bays Program, MA, NH

● Massachusetts Bays Program/Mini-Bays Project, MA

● Merrimack River, NH, MA

● Narragansett Bay, MA, RI

● New Bedford Harbor Watershed Assessment Project, MA

● Waquoit Bay, MA

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment

● Gulf of Maine Program
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

MICHIGAN (MI) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Clinton River Area of Concern, MI

● Lake Michigan, IL, IN, MI, WI

● Lake Superior EMAP - Great Lakes Assessment, MI, MN, WI

● Saginaw Bay Urban Targeting Project, MI

● Saginaw Bay, MI

● St. Mary's River, MI

● Southeast Michigan Initiative, MI

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Lakes Program

● Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency Cooperation on Ecosystem Management (ICEM)

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

MINNESOTA (MN) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Lake Superior EMAP - Great Lakes Assessment, MI, MN, WI

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Lakes Program

● Great Plains Program

● Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) Ecosystem Assessment

● Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency Cooperation on Ecosystem Management (ICEM)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

MISSISSIPPI (MS) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Back Bay of Biloxi Ecosystem Assessment, MS

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO

● Pearl River Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, MS

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Gulf of Mexico Program

● Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

MISSOURI (MO) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO

● Mississippi River Gateway Project, IL, MO

● Meramec River, MO

● Upper Niangua River Watershed, MO

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Plains Program

● Gulf of Mexico Program

● Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative

● Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency Cooperation on Ecosystem Management (ICEM)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

MONTANA (MT) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Blackfoot River, MT

● Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, ID, MT, WA

● Kootenay River, ID, MT, British Columbia

● Upper Clark Fork Basin, MT

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Plains Program

● Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) Ecosystem Assessment

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

NEBRASKA (NE) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Eastern Nebraska Saline Wetlands, NE

● Elm Creek, NE

● Omaha Stretch of the Missouri River, IA, NE

● Papio Lakes Project, NE

● Platte River, NE

● Salt Valley Lakes Project, NE

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Plains Program

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

NEVADA (NV) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Truckee River, CA, NV

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership Project

● Colorado River Program

● Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (NH) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Massachusetts Bays Program, MA, NH

● Massachusetts Bays Program/Mini-Bays Project, MA

● Merrimack River, NH, MA

● Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Ecological Risk Assessment, NH, ME

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment

● Gulf of Maine Program

● New England Resource Protection Project

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

NEW JERSEY (NJ) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Alcyon Lake, NJ

● Barnegat Bay, NJ

● Cranberry Lake, NJ

● Deal Lake, NJ

● Delaware Estuary, DE, NJ

● Greenwood Lake, NJ, NY

● Hackensack Meadowlands District, NJ

● Lake Musconetcong, NJ

● New York-New Jersey Harbor, NJ, NY

● Swartswood Lake, NJ

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● EMAP Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale Assessments

● EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment
● Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

NEW MEXICO (NM) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Jornada Long-Term Ecosystem Research Project, NM

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership Project

● Colorado River Program

● Great Plains Program

● Rio Grande Basin Landscape-Scale Assessment

● Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Watershed Project

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

NEW YORK (NY) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Buffalo River Area of Concern, NY

● Eighteenmile Creek Area of Concern, NY

● Greenwood Lake, NJ, NY

● Lake Champlain Advance Planning Area, VT

● Lake Champlain, NY, VT

● Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, NY, Ontario

● Long Island Sound, CT, NY

● New York City Water Supply Watersheds, NY

● New York-New Jersey Harbor, NJ, NY

● Niagara River Area of Concern, NY

● Niagara River Toxics Management Plan, NY

● Onondaga Lake, NY

● Oswego River Harbor Area of Concern, NY

● Peconic Bay, NY

● Rochester Embayment Area of Concern, NY

● St. Lawrence River Area of Concern, NY
Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Chesapeake Bay Program

● EMAP Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale Assessments

● EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment

● Great Lakes Program

● Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

NORTH CAROLINA (NC) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, NC

● Carteret County Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, NC

● Land-of-Sky Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, NC

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● EMAP Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale Assessments

● Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)

● Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)

● Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale 

Assessment

● Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

NORTH DAKOTA (ND) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Bowman-Haley Reservoir, ND

● Goodman Creek, ND

● Red River Watershed, ND

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Plains Program

● Prairie Potholes/Missouri Coteau Ecoregion Assessment

● Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) Ecosystem Assessment

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

OHIO (OH) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Ashtabula River Area of Concern, OH

● Big Darby Creek, OH

● Maumee River Area of Concern, OH

● Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Lakes Program

● Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency Cooperation on Ecosystem Management (ICEM)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

OKLAHOMA (OK) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer Project, OK

● Illinois River - Battle Branch, OK

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Plains Program

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

OREGON (OR) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins, OR

● Grande Ronde River Basin Project, OR

● Klamath Basin, CA, OR

● Tillamook Bay, OR

● Willamette River Basin, OR

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project

● Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Management Research Initiative

● President's Forest Plan (Pacific Northwest)

● San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

PENNSYLVANIA (PA) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Christina River, DE, PA

● Pequea and Mill Creeks, PA

● Philadelphia Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, PA

● Pocono Habitat Demonstration Project, PA

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Chesapeake Bay Program

● EMAP Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale Assessments

● EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment

● Mid-Atlantic Highlands Program (MAHA)

● Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

PUERTO RICO (PR) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Lake La Plata, PR

● Lake Loiza, PR

● San Juan Bay, PR

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

RHODE ISLAND (RI) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Narragansett Bay, MA, RI

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment

● New England Resource Protection Project

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

SOUTH CAROLINA (SC) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Charleston Harbor Project, SC

● Savannah River Basin, FL, GA, SC

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)

● Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale 

Assessment

● Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

SOUTH DAKOTA (SD) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Plains Program

● Prairie Potholes/Missouri Coteau Ecoregion Assessment

● Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) Ecosystem Assessment

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

TENNESSEE (TN) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Gulf of Mexico Program

● Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative

● Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)

● Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale 

Assessment

● Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

TEXAS (TX) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Corpus Christi Bay, TX

● Galveston Bay Estuary, TX

● Lake Worth, TX

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Plains Program

● Gulf of Mexico Program

● Rio Grande Basin Landscape-Scale Assessment

● Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Watershed Project

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

UTAH (UT) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Bear River, ID, UT, WY

● Chalk Creek, UT

● Little Bear River, UT

● Otter Creek, UT

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership Project

● Colorado River Program

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

VERMONT (VT) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Lake Champlain Advance Planning Area, VT

● Lake Champlain, NY, VT

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

VIRGINIA (VA) Environmental Protection 

Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Clinch Valley Watershed, VA

● National Capital Area (NCA) Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, DC, MD, VA

● Prince William County Ecosystem Project, VA

● Upper Tennessee River Basin, VA

● Virginia Eastern Shore Coastal Waters, VA

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System Project

● Chesapeake Bay Program

● EMAP Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale Assessments

● EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment

● Mid-Atlantic Highlands Program (MAHA)

● Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)

● Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)
● Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale 

Assessment

● Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

WASHINGTON (WA) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Chehalis River, WA

● Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, ID, MT, WA

● Lake Roosevelt, WA

● Pacific Northwestern Watershed Economic Valuation Project, WA

● Puget Sound Estuary, WA

● Willapa Bay Watershed Project, WA

● Yakima River, WA

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project

● Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Management Research Initiative

● President's Forest Plan (Pacific Northwest)

Ecoplaces Home

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

WEST VIRGINA (WV) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Canaan Valley, WV

● Middle Fork River, WV

● Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Chesapeake Bay Program

● EMAP Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale Assessments

● EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment

● Mid-Atlantic Highlands Program (MAHA)

● Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)

● Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)

● Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale 

Assessment

● Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)
Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

WISCONSIN (WI) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Lake Michigan, IL, IN, MI, WI

● Lake Superior EMAP - Great Lakes Assessment, MI, MN, WI

● Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern, WI

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Great Lakes Program

● Great Plains Program

● Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency Cooperation on Ecosystem Management (ICEM)

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to Protect Ecosystems

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from a 1995 publication, and has not 

been updated since the original publication date. Users are cautioned that information reported at that 

time may have become outdated.

WYOMING (WY) Environmental 

Protection Efforts 

Local-scale Protection Efforts 

● Bear River, ID, UT, WY

● Little Bear River, UT

● Squaw Creek and Baldwin Creek, WY

Large-scale Protection Efforts 

● Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership Project

● Colorado River Program

● Great Plains Program

Ecoplaces Home
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. 

Although the information provided here was accurate and current 

when first created, it is now outdated.

Index Page

Homepage

● Credits & Notices

Introduction

● About the Inventory

● Guidelines for Listing Projects in this Inventory

● Background: The Edgewater Consensus

● Future of the Inventory

Part One: Large-Scale Ecosystem Protection 

Efforts

● Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System Project

● Chesapeake Bay Program

● Chesapeake Bay/Mid-Atlantic Highlands/Mid-Atlantic Landscape-Scale Assessments

● Colorado Plateau Ecosystem Partnership Project

● Colorado River Program

● EMAP Northeastern Lake Assessment

● EMAP Mid-Atlantic Highlands Stream Assessment

● Great Lakes Program

● Great Plains Program

● Gulf of Maine Program

● Gulf of Mexico Program
● Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project

● Lower Mississippi Delta Initiative

● Mid-Atlantic Highlands Program (MAHA)

● Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)

● New England Resource Protection Project

● Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Management Research Initiative

● Prairie Potholes/Missouri Coteau Ecoregion Assessment

● Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) Ecosystem Assessment

● President's Forest Plan (Pacific Northwest)

● Rio Grande Basin Landscape-Scale Assessment

● Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Watershed Project

● San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary

● South Florida Geographic Initiative

● Southern Appalachians Assessment (SAA)

● Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve Area (SAMAB) Landscape-Scale 

Assessment

● Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI)

● Upper Midwest Initiative, Interagency Cooperation on Ecosystem Management (ICEM)

Part Two: Regional Summaries of Local-Scale 

Ecosystem Protection Efforts

EPA Region I Projects (CT,ME,MA,NH,RI,VT):

● Blackstone River, MA

● Buzzards Bay, MA

● Casco Bay Estuary Project, ME

● Green Spaces Healthy Places Project, MA

● Lake Champlain, NY, VT*

● Lake Champlain Advance Planning Area, VT

● Long Island Sound, NY, CT*

● Massachusetts Bays Program, MA, NH

● Massachusetts Bays Program/Mini-Bays Project, MA

● Merrimack River, NH, MA

● Narragansett Bay, MA, RI

● New Bedford Harbor Watershed Assessment Project, MA

● Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Ecological Risk Assessment, NH, ME
● Waquoit Bay, MA

EPA Region II Projects (NJ,NY,PR,VI):

● Alcyon Lake, NJ

● Barnegat Bay, NJ

● Buffalo River Area of Concern, NY

● Cranberry Lake, NJ

● Deal Lake, NJ

● Delaware Estuary, DE, NJ*

● Eighteenmile Creek Area of Concern, NY

● Greenwood Lake, NJ, NY

● Hackensack Meadowlands District, NJ

● Lake Champlain, NY, VT*

● Lake La Plata, PR

● Lake Loiza, PR

● Lake Musconetcong, NJ

● Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, NY, Ontario

● Long Island Sound, CT, NY*

● New York City Water Supply Watersheds, NY

● New York-New Jersey Harbor, NJ, NY

● Niagara River Area of Concern, NY

● Niagara River Toxics Management Plan, NY

● Onondaga Lake, NY

● Oswego River Harbor Area of Concern, NY

● Peconic Bay, NY

● Rochester Embayment Area of Concern, NY

● St. Lawrence River Area of Concern, NY

● San Juan Bay, PR

● Swartswood Lake, NJ

EPA Region III Projects (DC,DE,MD,PA,VA,WV):

● Anacostia River, DC, MD

● Canaan Valley, WV

● Christina River, DE, PA

● Clinch Valley Watershed, VA

● Delaware Estuary, NJ, DE*
● Delaware Inland Bays, DE

● Maryland's Atlantic Coastal Bays, MD

● Middle Fork River, WV

● National Capital Area (NCA) Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, DC, MD, VA

● Patuxent River Watershed, MD

● Pequea and Mill Creeks, PA

● Philadelphia Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, PA

● Pocono Habitat Demonstration Project, PA

● Prince William County Ecosystem Project, VA

● Silver Lake, DE

● Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV*

● Upper Tennessee River Basin, VA

● Virginia Eastern Shore Coastal Waters, VA

EPA Region IV Projects (AL,FL,GA,KY,MS,NC,SC,TN):

● ACF/ACT Comprehensive Study, AL, FL, GA

● Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, NC

● Back Bay of Biloxi Ecosystem Assessment, MS

● Bayou Chico Ecological Assessment, FL

● Bayou Grande Ecological Assessment, FL

● Bayou Texar Ecological Assessment, FL

● Cahaba River Basin Project, AL

● Carteret County Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, NC

● Central Dougherty Plain Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, GA

● Charleston Harbor Project, SC

● Escambia River Watershed Project, FL

● Flint Creek, AL

● Florida Bay Algal Bloom Monitoring Project, FL

● Florida Everglades Mercury Ecological Risk Assessment, FL

● Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, FL

● Florida Keys Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, FL

● Huntsville Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, AL

● Indian River Lagoon, FL

● Land-of-Sky Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, NC

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO*

● Loxahatchee River Basin Wetland Planning Project, FL

● Mobile Bay Restoration Demonstrations, AL
● Pearl River Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, MS

● Pensacola Bay Watershed Evaluation, FL

● Rookery Bay Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, FL

● Sarasota Bay, FL

● Savannah River Basin, FL, GA, SC

● South Florida Wetlands Permitting and Mitigation Strategy, FL

● Tampa Bay, FL

● Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV*

● Weeks Bay Estuarine Research Project, AL

● West Broward County Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, FL

● West Chatham County Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, GA

● West Kentucky Coalfield Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Project, KY

EPA Region V Projects (IL,IN,MI,MN,OH,WI):

● Ashtabula River Area of Concern, OH

● Big Darby Creek, OH

● Cache River, IL

● Clinton River Area of Concern, MI

● Lake Michigan, IL, IN, MI, WI

● Lake Superior EMAP - Great Lakes Assessment, MI, MN, WI

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO*

● Maumee River Area of Concern, OH

● Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern, WI

● Mississippi River Gateway Project, IL, MO*

● Northwest Indiana Environmental Initiative, IN

● Saginaw Bay, MI

● Saginaw Bay Urban Targeting Project, MI

● St. Mary's River, MI

● Southeast Chicago Urban Environmental Initiative, IL

● Southeast Michigan Initiative, MI

● Tri-State Initiative, KY, OH, WV*

EPA Region VI Projects (AR,LA,NM,OK,TX):

● Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer Project, OK

● Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary, LA

● Corpus Christi Bay, TX
● Galveston Bay Estuary, TX

● Illinois River - Battle Branch, OK

● Jornada Long-Term Ecosystem Research Project, NM

● Lake Pontchartrain Basin, LA

● Lake Worth, TX

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO*

● Tangipahoa River, LA

● Tensas River Basin Initiative, LA

EPA Region VII Projects (IA,KS,MO,NE):

● Beeds Lake, IA

● Big Spring Basin, IA

● Centerville Reservoirs Project, IA

● Cheyenne Bottoms Wetland Project, KS

● Clear Lake, IA

● Eastern Nebraska Saline Wetlands, NE

● Elm Creek, NE

● Hillsdale Reservoir, KS

● Iowa Great Lakes, IA

● Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Wetland Conservation Plan, IL, LA, MS, AR, KY, TN, MO*

● Meramec River, MO

● Mississippi River Gateway Project, IL, MO*

● Omaha Stretch of the Missouri River, IA, NE

● Papio Lakes Project, NE

● Pine Creek, IA

● Platte River, NE

● Salt Valley Lakes Project, NE

● Storm Lake Project, IA

● Upper Big Mill Creek, IA

● Upper Niangua River Watershed, MO

● Walnut Creek Prairie Restoration Project, IA

● Walnut Creek Watershed Project, IA

EPA Region VIII Projects (CO,MT,ND,SD,UT,WY):

● Animas River Basin Watershed Project, CO

● Bear River, ID, UT, WY*
● Blackfoot River, MT

● Bowman-Haley Reservoir, ND

● Chalk Creek, UT

● Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, ID, MT, WA*

● Clear Creek, CO

● Goodman Creek, ND

● Kootenay River, ID, MT, British Columbia*

● Little Bear River, UT

● Otter Creek, UT

● Red River Watershed, ND

● Squaw Creek and Baldwin Creek, WY

● Upper Arkansas River, CO

● Upper Clark Fork Basin, MT

EPA Region IX Projects (AZ,CA,HI,NV):

● Ala Wai Canal, HI

● Elkhorn Slough, CA

● Klamath Basin, CA, OR*

● Malibu Creek, CA

● Morro Bay, CA

● Oak Creek Watershed, AZ

● San Luis Rey River, CA

● Santa Margarita River, CA

● Santa Monica Bay, CA

● Truckee River, CA, NV

● Verde River Advance Identification (ADID) Project, AZ

● West Maui Watershed, HI

EPA Region X Projects (AK,ID,OR,WA):

● Bear River, ID, UT, WY*

● Chehalis River, WA

● Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed, ID, MT, WA*

● Coeur D'Alene Basin, ID

● Coos Bay/Coquille River Basins, OR

● Duck Creek, AK

● Grande Ronde River Basin Project, OR
● Klamath Basin, CA, OR*

● Kootenay River, ID, MT, British Columbia*

● Lake Roosevelt, WA

● Middle Snake River, ID

● Pacific Northwestern Watershed Economic Valuation Project, WA

● Puget Sound Estuary, WA

● Tillamook Bay, OR

● Willamette River Basin, OR

● Willapa Bay Watershed Project, WA

● Yakima River, WA

Part Three: Multisite Ecosystem Protection Efforts

● Biodiversity/Habitat Assessment Project

● Clean Lakes Program

● Ecosystem Management Strategy for Compliance and Enforcement

● EPA New England Regional Lead Initiative

● GATF Northwestern Riparian Zone Assessment and Restoration Project

● Gulf Ecological Management Sites

● Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Project

● Mississippi River Compliance Initiative

● Multimedia Project

● Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC)

● Oak-Savanna Ecosystem Project

● OECA/OC Watersheds Initiative

● Pacific Salmon Habitat Recovery Project

● Rocky Mountain Headwaters Mining Waste Initiative

● Targeted Watersheds Project

● TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) Case Studies

● Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Program

● Wetlands Advance Identification Program

● Wetland Restoration Research Project

Ecoplaces Home