Section 319 Success Stories

Volume III:

The Successful Implementation of the Clean Water Act’s

Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

4503F

Washington, DC 20460

EPA 841-S-01-001

February 2002

Section 319 Success Stories Volume III:

The Successful Implementation

of the Clean Water Act’s Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program

For copies of this document, contact:

National Service Center for Environmental Publications

Phone: 1-800-490-9198

Fax: 513-489-8695

web: www.epa.gov/ncepihom

or visit the web at:

www.epa.gov/owow/nps
Section 319 Success Stories

Volume III:

The Successful Implementation of the

Clean Water Act’s Section 319

Nonpoint Source Pollution Program

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Washington, DC
Contents i

Section 319 Success Stories: Section 319 Success Stories: 1 Section 319 Success Stories:

The Successful Implementation of the Clean Water Act’s

Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program

ALABAMA

Flint Creek Watershed Project: 7 oject:

Multiagency Effort Results in Water Quality Improvements

Tuscumbia-Fort Payne Aquifer Protection Program: 8 ogram:

Multiagency, Cooperative Approach Protects Aquifer

ALASKA

Restoration Work on the Kenai: ork on the Kenai: 10 ork on the Kenai:

Section 319 Funds Are Key to Youth Restoration Corps’s Success

Road and Stream Crossing Project in Tongass National Forest: 11 est:

New Data Help Identify Needed Fish Habitat Restoration

AMERICAN SAMOA

Nu’uuli Pala Lagoon Restoration Project: 12 oject:

Efforts Spread to Other Island Villages

ARIZONA

Restoration in Nutrioso Creek: 13 eek:

Successful Results Beginning to Show

Sediment Reduction at Hackberry Ranch: y Ranch: 16 y Ranch:

Reduction of 4 Tons Per Acre Realized

ARKANSAS

Buffalo National River Watershed Partnerships: atershed Partnerships: 17 atershed Partnerships:

Partners Improve Swine Waste Management

A Community Approach to Managing Manure in the Buf e in the Buffalo River Watershed: atershed: 19 atershed:

Local Watershed Assistance Program Helps Dairy Farmers

CALIFORNIA

Grassland Bypass Project: 21 oject:

Economic Incentives Program Helps to Improve Water Quality

Turning History Around: 23 ound:

Stream Restoration Reclaims a Meadow While Helping to Control Floods

COLORADO

Mining Remediation in the Chalk Creek Watershed: atershed: 25 atershed:

Project Demonstrates Exciting Possibilities

Rio Blanco Restoration: Rio Blanco Restoration: 27 Rio Blanco Restoration:

Adopted Rocks and Homemade Jelly Help Fund Demonstration Project

CONNECTICUT

Center Springs Pond Restoration Project: 29 oject:

Skaters and Fish Return to Pond

Lake Waramaug Watershed Agricultural Waste Management System: aste Management System: 31 aste Management System:

One Farm Can Make a Difference

DELAWARE

Partners Upgrade Septic Systems in Coverdale Crossroads: 33 oads:

Quality of Life Improved for Residents

Contents
ii Contents

Contents (cont.)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Marsh Restoration and Island Enhancement Projects at Kingman Lake: ojects at Kingman Lake: 34 ojects at Kingman Lake:

Tidal Wetland Habitats Re-created

The Watts Branch Initiative: atts Branch Initiative: 36 atts Branch Initiative:

Community Involvement Key to Success

FLORIDA

Blackwater River Restoration: Blackwater River Restoration: 37 Blackwater River Restoration:

Project Demonstrates Mechanics of Erosion and Effectiveness of BMPs

Brevard County’ d County’s Urban Storm Water Retrofitting Projects: ojects: 38 ojects:

Lessons Learned About Design, Location, and Monitoring

GEORGIA

Broad River Streambank Stabilization Project: 40 oject:

Tree Revetments Rescue Eroding Banks

North Grif North Griffin Storm Water Detention Pond Project: 41 oject:

Constructed Wetland System Protects Water, Wins Award

GUAM

Ugum Watershed Project: 42 oject:

Students Plant Acacia Seedlings to Help Restore Watershed

HAWAII

He’eia Coastal Restoration Project: 43 oject:

Thousands of Volunteers Replace Alien Plants with Native Species

Integration of Aquaculture with Taro Production: oduction: 44 oduction:

Nonpoint Source Pollutants Reduced in Demonstration Project

IDAHO

Conservation in Hatwai Creek: 45 eek:

Partners Work Together on Four Successful Projects

Restoring the Paradise Creek Watershed: atershed: 47 atershed:

Phased Approach Implemented to Address Pollution and Flooding

Streambank Stabilization in the eambank Stabilization in the Thomas Fork Watershed: atershed: 49 atershed:

Photo Monitoring Sells Landowners on Bank Stabilization

ILLINOIS

Lake Pittsfield Project: 50 oject:

Ninety Percent Reduction in Sediment Loading Achieved

Restoration of the Flint Creek Watershed: atershed: 52 atershed:

Restoration Partnership Completes Multiple Projects

INDIANA

Blue River Riparian Reforestation: estation: 53 estation:

The Nature Conservancy Gets Landowners Involved

Little Pine Creek and Indian Watersheds: atersheds: 55 atersheds:

Constructed Wetland System Averts Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution

IOWA

Bigalk Creek Watershed Project: 56 oject:

Rainbow Trout Population Rebounds

The Lake Fisher Water Quality Project: 57 oject:

Chipped Tires Help Protect Public Water Supply

Pine Creek Water Quality Project: 59 oject:

Life Expectancy of Pine Lakes Extended
Contents iii

KANSAS

Braeburn Golf Course Project: 60 oject:

Nitrates Reduced by More Than 80 Percent

On-site Sewage Disposal on Dif On-site Sewage Disposal on Difficult Sites: ficult Sites: 62 ficult Sites:

Special Conditions Demand Alternative Response

KENTUCKY

Elkhorn Creek BMP Demonstration Project: 63 oject:

Farmers See Water Supply Alternatives in Action

LOUISIANA

Bayou Plaquemine Brule: Bayou Plaquemine Brule: 64 Bayou Plaquemine Brule:

Louisiana Applies Satellite Imagery to Watershed Planning and Management

Flat River and Red Chute Bayou Watersheds: atersheds: 66 atersheds:

BMPs Reduce Soil Loss

MAINE

Highland Lake Watershed Project: 67 oject:

Hotspots Model Links Land Use and Water Quality

Silver Spring Brook Watershed Demonstration Project: 69 oject:

Landowners’ Cooperation Plus Town’s Commitment Equals Success

MARYLAND

Evaluating the Ef Evaluating the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Forestry BMPs: y BMPs: 71 y BMPs:

Paired Watershed Study Tests BMP Performance

MASSACHUSETTS

Broad Marsh River Storm Water Remediation Project: 72 oject:

Infiltration Structures Reduce Pollutants, Save Shellfish Beds

Lake Tashmoo Storm Water Remediation Project: 74 oject:

First Flush Leaching Basins More Effective Than Expected

MICHIGAN

Innovative Farmers of Michigan: Innovative Farmers of Michigan: 76 Innovative Farmers of Michigan:

Blending Farm Profitability and Water Quality Protection

Little Rabbit River Watershed Project: 78 oject:

One-to-One Approach Wins Landowners’ Support

MINNESOTA

North St. Paul Urban Ecology Center: North St. Paul Urban Ecology Center: 80 North St. Paul Urban Ecology Center:

Wetland Improvements Needed to Control Storm Water

Prior Lake/Spring Lake Improvement Project: 81 oject:

Long-Term Implementation Strategy Off to a Good Start

MISSISSIPPI

Muddy Creek Watershed Demonstration Project: 83 oject:

BMPs Retain 3,500 Tons of Soil per Year

Roebuck Lake Demonstration Project: 84 oject:

Slotted-Board Risers Installed to Save Topsoil and Improve Water Quality

MISSOURI

Mississippi Delta Irrigation Water Management Project: 85 oject:

Irrigation Efficiency Improved

Upper Niangua Grazing Demonstration Project: 87 oject:

Counties Unite to Start Demonstration Farms

Contents (cont.)
iv Contents

MONTANA

Careless Creek Watershed Project: 90 oject:

Sediment Delivery Reduced by 25 Percent

Restoration in Muddy Creek: 92 eek:

Will a Name Change Be Needed?

NEBRASKA

Walnut Creek Lake Project: 94 oject:

Partnership Drives Watershed Protection

Wellhead Protection in Guide Rock: otection in Guide Rock: 95 otection in Guide Rock:

Village Closes Abandoned Wells to Protect Water Supply

NEVADA

Martin Slough Water Quality Enhancement Project: 97 oject:

Water Quality Improves in the Upper Carson River Basin

Middle Carson River Restoration Project: 98 oject:

Bioengineering Used to Restore Unstable Banks

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Chocorua Lake Project: 100 oject:

BMPs Reduce Phosphorus by 82 Percent

Lake Opechee Watershed Project: 101 oject:

City-State Partnership Takes on Multiple Pollutants

NEW JERSEY

Restoration of Strawbridge Lake: Restoration of Strawbridge Lake: 103 Restoration of Strawbridge Lake:

 Volunteers Assist in Stabilizing Shoreline and Constructing Wetlands

The Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Restoration Project: 104 oject:

Streamwatch Volunteers Monitor Success of Restoration Efforts

NEW MEXICO

Lower Bitter Creek Restoration Project: 105 oject:

Sediment Loads Reduced by Implementing BMPs

Valle Grande Grass Bank Water Quality Improvement Project: 107 oject:

Success Breeds More Success

NEW YORK

Keuka Lake Watershed: atershed: 109 atershed:

Grape Growers Implement Soil Conservation Practices

Wappingers Creek Watershed: atershed: 110 atershed:

AEM Program Plays a Vital Role

NORTH CAROLINA

Edenton Storm Water Wetland Project: 111 oject:

Wetland Systems Reduce Nitrogen Concentrations

Goose Creek Urban Stream Rehabilitation Project: 113 oject:

Ecosystem Protection Practices Installed in Low-Income Neighborhood

NORTH DAKOTA

Cottonwood Creek Watershed: atershed: 114 atershed:

Project Is a Success in the Works

Red River Basin Riparian Project: 117 oject:

Turtle River Site Passes the Test

Contents (cont.)
Contents v

OHIO

Stillwater River Watershed Protection Project: 119 oject:

High Local Interest Helps Launch Watershed Project

Toussaint River Incentive Improvement Program: 120 ogram:

Buffer Project Becomes a Model of Conservation Partnership

OKLAHOMA

Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Wetlands: etlands: 122 etlands:

A Sustainable Solution for Abandoned Mine Problems

Poteau River Comprehensive Watershed Management Program: 124 ogram:

Local Involvement Ensures Program Sustainability

The Spring Creek Project: 126 oject:

Streambanks Stabilized Through Stream Restoration

OREGON

Dawson Wetland Restoration Project: 128 oject:

Landowners and Wetlands Both Win

South Myrtle Creek Ditch Project: 129 oject:

Removal of Dam Benefits Aquatic Life

Wet Meadow Restoration in the Upper Grande Ronde Basin: et Meadow Restoration in the Upper Grande Ronde Basin: 131 et Meadow Restoration in the Upper Grande Ronde Basin:

Channel Restoration Brings Cooler Waters

PENNSYLVANIA

Narrows Bioengineering Project: 132 oject:

Cold-Water Fishery Restored Through Bioengineering

Villanova’ illanova’s Storm Water Wetland Retrofit: 133 ofit:

BMP Treats Runoff and Provides Research Site

PUERTO RICO

Coastal Nonpoint Source Controls: 135 ols:

Executive Order Adopts Section 6217(g) Management Measures as Official Policy

RHODE ISLAND

Curran Brook Sedimentation Pond: ook Sedimentation Pond: 136 ook Sedimentation Pond:

Multiple Partners Construct Storm Water Control System

Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration: Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration: 137 Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration:

Undersized Culverts Replaced with Self-Regulating Gates

SOUTH CAROLINA

Constructed Wetlands for Failing Septic Tanks: 139 anks:

New Technologies Solve an Old Problem

Stevens Creek Watershed Project: 140 oject:

Demonstration Sites Show Reductions in Fecal Coliform Bacteria

SOUTH DAKOTA

Big Stone Lake Restoration Project: 141 oject:

Better Water Quality Improves Fisheries, Recreation

Management-Intensive Grazing Project: 143 oject:

Rotational Grazing Reduces Erosion, Increases Profits

TENNESSEE

Ghost River Land Acquisition Project: 144 oject:

 River Protected by Restoring Forested Wetlands

 Using Constructed Wetlands to Clean Up Pesticides: etlands to Clean Up Pesticides: 146 etlands to Clean Up Pesticides:

 Container Nurseries Will Benefit from Successful Pilot-Scale Study

Contents (cont.)
vi Contents

TEXAS

Atrazine Problems in the Lake Aquilla and Marlin City Lake System: oblems in the Lake Aquilla and Marlin City Lake System: 147 oblems in the Lake Aquilla and Marlin City Lake System:

Farmers Take a Proactive Stance

On-Farm Composting of Dairy Cattle Solid Waste: 148 aste:

Protecting Water Quality While Producing a Salable Product

UTAH

Little Bear River Project: 149 oject:

Voluntary Approaches Yield Success

Success in the Chalk Creek Watershed: atershed: 151 atershed:

Reduced Phosphorus, Enhanced Habitat Result

VERMONT

Flow Restoration Below Hydroelectric Facilities: oelectric Facilities: 153 oelectric Facilities:

Relicensing Offers Opportunity to Increase Stream Flows

Lake Champlain Basin Watershed Project: 154 oject:

Significant Pollutant Reductions Achieved

VIRGINIA

Cabin Branch Mine Orphaned Land Project: 156 oject:

Flora and Fauna Benefit from Mine Reclamation

Toncrae Mine Orphaned Land Project: 158 oject:

Mine Site Reclamation Increases Species Diversity

VIRGIN ISLANDS

Virgin Islands Partnership: gin Islands Partnership: 160 gin Islands Partnership:

Alternative Treatment Systems Prevent Contamination of Coastal Waters

WASHINGTON

Best Management Practices on Model Horse Farms: Best Management Practices on Model Horse Farms: 161 Best Management Practices on Model Horse Farms:

Farm Plan Management Reduces Nutrients and Sediment

A Moo-ving Approach to Dairy Waste Management: aste Management: 162 aste Management:

Fecal Coliform Pollution Reduced in Whatcom County

Sediment Reduction in Yakima River Basin: akima River Basin: 164 akima River Basin:

People Become Stewards of Their Own Watershed

WEST VIRGINIA

The North Fork Project: 165 oject:

Farmers’ Cooperation Leads to Proposed Delisting of Degraded River

WISCONSIN

Otter Creek Project: 168 oject:

319 National Monitoring Program Goals Met

Success in Spring Creek Watershed: atershed: 169 atershed:

Natural Reproduction of Trout Confirms Water Quality Improvement

WYOMING

Jackson Hole Rodeo Grounds Snow Storage Site: ounds Snow Storage Site: 170 ounds Snow Storage Site:

Filtration System Reduces Urban Storm Water Runoff

Muddy Creek Coordinated Resource Management Project: 172 oject:

Cattle Ranches and Trout Streams Can Coexist

Contents (cont.)
Contents vii

INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Ranch Water Quality Planning: ater Quality Planning: 175 ater Quality Planning:

Voluntary Rangeland Management Eases Impacts on California Watersheds

Colorado Water Protection Project: 176 oject:

League of Women Voters Guides Extensive Urban NPS Campaign

Nonpoint Education for Municipal Of Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO): ficials (NEMO): 177 ficials (NEMO):

Successful Connecticut Project Used as Model Nationwide

Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program: 179 ogram:

More Than 1.2 Million People Reached

The Salt Creek Wilderness: eek Wilderness: 180 eek Wilderness:

Illinois Zoo Offers Interactive Environmental Learning Experience

North Dakota Eco-Ed Camps: North Dakota Eco-Ed Camps: 182 North Dakota Eco-Ed Camps:

Thousands of Students Have Fun While Learning

University of Rhode Island Onsite Wastewater Training Center: raining Center: 183 raining Center:

Pioneering Agency Teaches, Demonstrates Innovative Systems

Water Action Volunteers: olunteers: 184 olunteers:

WAV and Its Partners Make a Difference in Wisconsin

Stream Monitoring Network with Wyoming Schools: eam Monitoring Network with Wyoming Schools: 185 eam Monitoring Network with Wyoming Schools:

Trained Teams Initiate, Expand School Monitoring Programs

INNOVATIVE STATE PROGRAMS

California’ California’s BIOS Program: 187 ogram:

Growers Adopt Whole-System Management Approach to Reduce Pesticide Use

Maui County Erosion and Sediment Control Training Project: 189 oject:

Workshops Explain Ordinance, Teach BMP Installation

Idaho’s Dairy Pollution Prevention Initiative: evention Initiative: 191 evention Initiative:

Unique Program Eliminates Direct Dairy Discharges

Creating a Storm Water Utility in Chicopee, Massachusetts: ater Utility in Chicopee, Massachusetts: 193 ater Utility in Chicopee, Massachusetts:

Project Praised as Outstanding Planning Project

New York’s Agricultural Environmental Management Program: 195 ogram:

Incentive-based Program Helps Farmers Meet Tough Standards

South Carolina Forestry BMP Compliance Program: 197 ogram:

Proactive Strategy Raises BMP Compliance Rate

Statewide Clean Marina Programs: ograms: 198 ograms:

BMPs, Recognition, and Outreach Help Protect Coastal Resources

Contents (cont.)
viii Contents

STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS

California’ California’s Water Bond Program 201 ogram

California’ California’s Loan Programs 202 ograms

Florida Forever Program 202 ogram

Georgia’s Greenspace Program 203 ogram

Iowa’s Water Quality Initiative 203 ater Quality Initiative

Maine’s Funding Programs 205 ograms

Clean Michigan Initiative 206 Clean Michigan Initiative

Minnesota’ Minnesota’s Clean Water Partnership Program 206 ogram

Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Program 207 ogram

New Hampshire’s Water Supply Land Conservation Grant Program 208 ogram

New Jersey’ New Jersey’s Funding Programs 208 ograms

New York’s Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act ater/Clean Air Bond Act 209 ater/Clean Air Bond Act

North Carolina’s Clean Water Management Trust Fund 209 rust Fund

Clean Ohio Fund 210 Clean Ohio Fund

Oregon’s Watershed Restoration Grants 210 atershed Restoration Grants

Pennsylvania’ Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener Program 211 ogram

Vermont’ ermont’s Funding Programs 212 ograms

Virginia’s Water Quality Improvement Act ovement Act 213 ovement Act

Washington’ ashington’s Water Quality Funding Programs 214 ograms

Wisconsin’ Wisconsin’s Grant Programs for Runof ograms for Runoff Management f Management 214 f Management

State Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs 215 ograms

Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs 215 ograms

TRIBAL SECTION 319 PROJECTS

Restoring Watersheds by Decommissioning Forest Roads: est Roads: 217 est Roads:

Karuk Tribe and Forest Service Form Successful Partnership

Winchester Lake Watershed Project: 219 oject:

Local Partners Join in Implementing TMDL Plan

Water Quality Best Management Practices Plan: ater Quality Best Management Practices Plan: 220 ater Quality Best Management Practices Plan:

Choctaw Tribe Addresses Soil Erosion

Restoring Little Porcupine Creek: 221 eek:

Alternative Water Sources and Grazing Rotation Help to Restore Stream

Streambank Restoration at Bradley and Standingdeer Campgrounds: 221 ounds:

An Innovative Solution Solves a Common Problem

Glossary G-1

Appendix A-1 Appendix

Success Story Index and Sources

Contents (cont.)
Introduction 1

Section 319 Success Stories:

The Successful Implementation of the Clean Water Act’s

Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program

T his document is the third volume of Section

319 Success Stories, the first volume of which

was published in November 1994 and the second

in October 1997. The first document illustrated

the states’ achievements in their initial efforts to

implement their nonpoint source programs under

section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The second

volume demonstrated the maturation of the state

programs and was replete with many examples of

the documented water quality improvements,

improved fisheries, reduced loadings, and increased public awareness that are a result of the

many projects that have received section 319

funding.

Success Stories: Volume III contains approximately two new stories per state, highlighting

some of the additional successes achieved since

the 1997 publication. These stories demonstrate

better-defined water quality improvements, as well

as growing partnerships and funding sources, as

state 319 programs expand and states learn increasingly more from past 319 demonstration

projects. Collectively, they represent only a fraction of the section 319 project successes.

Nonpoint source pollution

After Congress passed the Clean Water Act in

1972, the Nation’s water quality community placed

a primary emphasis on addressing and controlling

point source pollution (pollution coming from a

discrete conveyance or location, such as industrial

and municipal waste discharge pipes). Not only

were these sources the primary contributors to the

degradation of our nation’s waters at the time, but

the extent and significance of nonpoint source

pollution was also poorly understood and overshadowed by efforts to control pollution from

point sources.

Today, nonpoint source pollution remains the

Nation’s largest source of water quality problems.

It is the main reason that approximately 40 percent of surveyed rivers, lakes, and estuaries are

not clean enough to meet basic uses such as fishing or swimming.

Nonpoint source pollution occurs when

rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water runs over

land or through the ground, picks up pollutants,

and deposits them into rivers, lakes, and coastal

waters or introduces them into groundwater.

Nonpoint source pollution also includes adverse

changes to the hydrology of water bodies and

their associated aquatic habitats.

The most common nonpoint source pollutants are soils and nutrients that storm water runoff picks up as it flows overland to rivers and

streams; for example, runoff from agricultural

land and other treated open spaces, urban developments, construction sites, roads, and bridges.
2 Introduction

Other common nonpoint source pollutants include pesticides, pathogens (bacteria and viruses),

salt, oil, grease, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals.

The most recent National Water Quality Inventory (1998) indicates that nonpoint sources constitute the leading sources of water pollution in the

United States today. States and other jurisdictions

reported agriculture as the most widespread

source of pollution in assessed rivers, streams, and

lakes, with hydromodification and urban runoff

following as the second and third leading sources

of pollution.

Nonpoint source pollution causes or contributes to beach closures, destroyed habitat, unsafe

drinking water, fish kills, and many other severe

environmental and human health problems. It also

spoils the beauty and important functions of

clean, healthy water habitats.

Nonpoint source program—Section 319 of the

Clean Water Act

Congress established the national nonpoint source

program in 1987 when it amended the Clean

Water Act with section 319, “Nonpoint Source

Management Programs.” States were to address

nonpoint source pollution by

• Conducting statewide assessments of their waters

to identify those that are impaired (do not

fully support state water quality standards)

or threatened (currently meet water quality

standards but are unlikely to continue to

meet water quality standards fully) because

of nonpoint sources.

• Developing nonpoint source management programs

to address the impaired or threatened

waters identified in nonpoint source assessments.

• Implementing their EPA-approved nonpoint source

management programs over a multiyear time

frame.

All states and territories and, as of September

2001, more than 70 tribes (representing over 70

percent of Indian Country) now have EPA-approved nonpoint source assessments and management programs.

In 1995, recognizing the growing experience

of states, tribes, and localities in addressing nonpoint source pollution and the fact that state,

tribal, and local nonpoint source programs had

matured considerably since enactment of section

319 in 1987, representatives of EPA and the

states, under the auspices of the Association of

State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), initiated joint discussions to develop a new framework for further

strengthening state nonpoint source programs.

These discussions continued for more than a year,

spanning fiscal years (FY) 1995 and 1996, and

resulted in new national section 319 program and

grant guidance that EPA signed and ASIWPCA

endorsed. This May 1996 guidance reflected the

states’ and EPA’s joint commitment to upgrade

Nonpoint source pollution causes or contributes to beach closures, destroyed

habitat, unsafe drinking water, fish kills, and many other severe environmental

and human health problems.
Introduction 3

state nonpoint source management

programs to incorporate nine key

program elements designed to

achieve and maintain beneficial uses

of water.

The guidance also provided for

discontinuing competitive award of a

portion of each state’s annual section

319 grant award, thereby ensuring a

firm annual planning target for each

state at the outset of each annual

award cycle, reducing the amount and

frequency of administrative oversight

and reporting, and offering greater

flexibility for the states and territories in establishing priorities for the use of these funds. Additionally, a state that incorporates all nine key elements

into its revised nonpoint source management

program and has a proven track record of effective implementation of its nonpoint source programs is formally recognized by the Regional

Administrator and the Assistant Administrator for

Water as a Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits

State. Nonpoint Source Enhanced Benefits States

are afforded substantially reduced oversight and

maximum flexibility to implement their state

programs and to achieve water quality objectives.

Thus, although EPA greatly streamlined the section 319 grants program for all states, it also provided further flexibility to the Nonpoint Source

Enhanced Benefits States with complete programs

and proven track records.

The nine key elements that form the core of

the states’ upgraded nonpoint source management

programs are the following:

1. Short- and long-term goals and objectives.

2. Strong working partnerships with all key

stakeholders.

3. Balanced approach emphasizing statewide

and watershed-level programs.

4. Plans to abate known impairments and

prevent significant threats to water quality.

5. Identifying and progressively addressing

impaired or threatened waters.

6. Establishing flexible, targeted, iterative

approaches.

7. Identifying federal programs that are not

consistent with state programs.

8. Efficient and effective program management and implementation.

9. Periodic review and evaluation of program

success at least every 5 years.

All states and territories will have approved,

upgraded nonpoint source management programs

by the end of 2001.

Responsibility and funding for the 319

Program

EPA is divided into 10 regions, with offices in

Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Atlanta,

Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle. Each EPA region has a Nonpoint Source Coordinator, who is familiar with the

nonpoint source programs in each of the states,

territories, and tribes in that region and the 319

funding process that supports them. In turn, each

state has a designated Nonpoint Source Coordinator responsible for managing the state’s nonpoint

source activities and funds. For specific EPA

regional and state NPS Coordinators, see EPA’s

web site at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/

contacts.html. In most states, this Coordinator is

located in the state’s water quality agency. In several states, however, the NPS Coordinator is located in the state’s conservation agency, health

agency, or agricultural agency. Increasingly, deciThe stories highlight the range of best

management practices, training

programs, and other acitivites

implemented to achieve measurable

improvements in water quality.
4 Introduction

sions about funding and program priorities are

made by a broad-based NPS Task Force representing not only state agencies but also other

stakeholders at the state and local levels.

EPA awards grants to states using an allocation

formula based on population, cropland acreage,

critical aquatic habitats, pasture and rangeland

acreage, forest harvest acreage, wellhead protection

areas, mining, and pesticide use to determine the

amount to be awarded to each state. Each year, the

congressional appropriation for section 319 is

multiplied by the applicable percentage based on

the formula to determine each state’s allocation for

that year. Each state or tribe is required to provide

a 40 percent nonfederal dollar match.

From FY 1990 through 2001, EPA awarded an

aggregate of more than $1.3 billion to states and

territories under section 319. Funds available for

grants in FY 2001 alone have increased to more

than $237 million, which is nearly double the FY

1998 appropriation. A small portion of the annual

section 319 appropriation, one-third of 1 percent,

is by statute set aside for Indian tribes. In FY 2000

and FY 2001, Congress authorized EPA to award

grants to Indian tribes under section 319 in an

amount that exceeds the statutory cap, recognizing

that the tribes need and deserve increased financial

support to implement their nonpoint source programs. EPA’s long-term goal is that the one-third of

1 percent cap on tribal nonpoint source grants will

be permanently eliminated.

Future of nonpoint source programs

With all state 319 programs upgraded by the end

of 2001, EPA and ASIWPCA have established a

new state/EPA Nonpoint Source Management

Partnership to support states in the implementation of their upgraded programs. The partnership

consists of a state/EPA Steering Committee and

seven workgroups to help identify and solve

states’ highest-priority nonpoint source needs. The

seven workgroups cover issues relating to

1. Watershed planning and implementation.

2. Rural nonpoint sources.

3. Urban nonpoint sources.

4. Nonpoint source grants management.

5. Nonpoint source capacity building and

funding.

6. Information transfer and outreach.

7. Documenting nonpoint source results.

This new partnership provides an excellent

framework for the states and EPA to work toNonpoint source pollution occurs when rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water

runs over land or through the ground, picks up pollutants and deposits them

into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters or introduces them into groundwater.

Nonpoint source pollution is the main reason that

approximately 40 percent of surveyed rivers, lakes,

and estuaries are not clean enough for fishing or

swimming.
Introduction 5

gether cooperatively to identify, prioritize, and

solve nonpoint source problems. For more detailed information on particular workgroup activities, see EPA’s web site at www.epa.gov/owow/

nps/partnership.html.

Defining success

Many of the projects contained in Success Stories:

Volume III directly address the Clean Water Act’s

goal of achieving water quality standards by restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical,

and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.

The “state-by-state showcase” stories primarily

demonstrate water quality improvements, a return

to water quality standards, or other objective

evidence of improvement in the water or in the

habitat associated with the water. Many of the

stories also document specific pollutant reductions or other measurable improvements attributed to the 319 project, such as increased shade

for temperature-impaired waters and improved

streamside habitat. The stories highlight the range

of best management practices, training programs,

and other activities implemented to achieve these

successes, as well as the funding sources and other

partners that contributed to the successful project.

Although stories contained in Success Stories:

Volume III emphasize “on-the-ground” projects to

solve nonpoint source problems, many states also

have created special programs and authorities to

prevent nonpoint source problems. Interested

readers should refer to two research studies published by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI)

for general background on state authorities to

address nonpoint source pollution—Enforceable

State Mechanisms for the Control of Nonpoint Source

Water Pollution (1997) and Almanac of Enforceable

State Laws to Control Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

(1998). Of special interest is an ELI study on how

eight states in particular are using a combination

of authorities and on-the-ground programs to

achieve their nonpoint source goals of both remediation and protection (see Putting the Pieces Together: State Nonpoint Source Enforceable Mechanisms in

Context [2000]). More details about ELI’s research

studies can be found on EPA’s web site at

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pubs.html.

Four “special feature” sections are also included in this document, highlighting especially

innovative state programs, information and education programs, state funding programs, and tribal

319 projects.

For more information

The stories in this document are abbreviated,

nontechnical reviews that reflect only a small

portion of each project’s larger purposes. For

further information on a particular project, call

the state or local contact listed with the story. You

may also contact EPA Headquarters’ Nonpoint

Source Control Branch at 202-260-7100 or find

EPA on the Internet at www.epa.gov/owow/nps.

The Clean Water Act’s goal is to achieve water quality standards by restoring

and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s

waters.
6 Introduction
7

The Flint Creek watershed is in southeast

Lawrence County and western Morgan County in

Alabama. The creek is listed as a priority water

body for agricultural nonpoint source pollution

and is documented as having at least 25 miles of

impaired surface water due to nutrients, organic

enrichment, and pathogens originating from animal holding and management areas, feedlots,

dairies, and other nonpoint sources. The water

quality problems were so severe that a local water

supply on Flint Creek was forced to abandon an

intake and water treatment facility as a result of

excess nutrients.

Multiagency effort

The Flint Creek Watershed Project is a multiagency

cooperative effort led by local leaders and watershed residents. In 1994 a Watershed Conservancy

District was established, and plans were developed

with the assistance of five federal agencies, five

Alabama state agencies, and three local soil and

water conservation districts. Sources of funding for

the project activities included section 319 grants,

U.S. Department of Agriculture programs such as

the Environmental Quality Incentive Program and

the Water Quality Incentive Program, Soil and

Water Conservation District cost-share funds, and

corporate donations.

Flint Creek Watershed Project:

Multiagency Effort Results in Water Quality Improvements

Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama

A variety of projects were implemented in

the watershed, including poultry, beef cattle, and

cropland demonstrations; well sampling programs;

on-site wastewater demonstrations; and riparian

zone management efforts. Agricultural best management practices implemented included installing

dry stacks and dead bird composters, promoting

no-till farming and heavy use areas for feeding,

and constructing stream crossings for cattle.

Outreach activities were conducted frequently in the watershed. The annual Flint Creek

Wet & Wild Festival, for example, brought together more than 800 students in 1999. Other

projects included a household hazardous waste

day, pesticide amnesty day, and volunteer monitoring programs.

Water quality improvements

Improvements in fecal coliform counts have been

documented at 11 of the 13 sampling sites. In

addition, nitrate concentrations have decreased

over time at three sites, turbidity has decreased at

two sites, and ammonia concentrations have decreased downstream of a sewage lagoon. Although no benefit to dissolved oxygen has been

documented to date, the decline of duckweed and

algae blooms in Flint Creek demonstrates that the

health of the watershed is improving.

ALABAMA

Contact:

Brad Bole

Project Coordinator

3120 Highway 36 West

Hartselle, AL 35640

256-773-6543 (ext. 107)

bbole@al.nrcs.usda.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (dairy)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• fecal coliform bacteria

Project Activities:

• agricultural BMPs (dry

stacks, dead bird

composters, no-till farming,

heavy use areas for

feeding, stream crossings)

• riparian zone management

• outreach

Results:

• decrease in fecal coliform

counts, nitrate

concentrations, turbidity,

and ammonia

concentrations

• decline in duckweed/

algae blooms

www.adem.state.al.us/EnviroProtect/WatershedMan/watman/mgtplan/mgtplan.htm

Alabama
8

Tuscumbia-Fort Payne Aquifer Protection Program:

Multiagency, Cooperative Approach Protects Aquifer

Tennessee River Valley, Alabama

One of the fastest-growing regions in Alabama is

the Tennessee River Valley. This area is also one

of the state’s most rapidly developing areas in

agricultural production (cotton and corn), recreation, and industry. The expanding economic base

has led to suburban expansion into rural areas,

resulting in more diverse nonpoint sources of

pollution and more land coverage by impervious

surfaces. As a result, one of the state’s major

aquifers, the Tuscumbia-Fort Payne Aquifer, was

showing signs of stress due to contamination

from surface sources.

The Highland Rim Physiographic Region

of the state, in which the aquifer is located,

includes six counties with roughly 4,500 square

miles within the Tennessee River drainage basin.

About 1.3 million pounds and 146,102 gallons

of pesticides and herbicides are applied in the

area yearly, causing major concern about the

drinking water supplies throughout the region.

Sampling results indicate that there is localized

contamination in the Highland Rim Physiographic

Region: 33 percent of wells and 32 percent of

springs tested positive for pesticides, indicating

that pesticides are entering the subterranean

channel system that discharges into surface water

bodies. Fecal coliform bacteria from poorly maintained on-site wastewater treatment systems are

also a concern.

Multiagency project

The Tuscumbia-Fort Payne Aquifer Protection

Program involved a multiagency cooperative

approach. Alabama’s Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) received partnership support from the Geological Survey of Alabama, the Alabama Department of Agriculture

and Industries, the Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Commission, the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS), the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, the Alabama Department of Public Health, EPA, and the Tennessee

Valley Authority, as well as 17 municipal and 6

county governments. Financial support for the

program came from EPA’s 319 grant program,

which funded all aspects of the program.

The purpose of the aquifer protection program

was to create a comprehensive program that would

provide the maximum aquifer protection, given the

regulatory limitations of community and county

authorities. The program incorporated various state

programs and developed a strategy for groundwater

protection through cooperative efforts. The strategies for aquifer protection were to technically assess

the aquifer and its characteristics, to assess the nonpoint sources of contamination (such as agricultural

applications of chemicals and improperly maintained

septic systems), and to create educational programs

based on the technical data.

Contact:

Enid Probst

Alabama Department of

Environmental Management

P.O. Box 301463

Montgomery, AL 36130

eib@adem.state.al.us

ALABAMA

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (farming)

• failing septic systems

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• pesticides

• herbicides

• fecal coliform bacteria

Project Activities:

• aquifer assessments

• education/outreach

programs

Results:

• assessment of all 14

water systems

• outreach to more than

3 million people

www.adem.state.al.us/EnviroProtect/WatershedMan/watman/mgtplan/mgtplan.htm

Alabama
9

Technical strategy

Madison County’s Wellhead Protection Program

provided a framework for the technical strategy.

That program had previously delineated recharge

areas for 6 of the 14 water systems in the Highland Rim Region. The Geological Survey of

Alabama delineated the recharge areas for the

remaining eight water systems in the study area.

Water level and geologic field mapping, as well

as dye tracing studies, were used to determine the

flow boundaries and characteristics of each well or

spring. After the recharge areas were identified, a

comprehensive potential contaminant source inventory was conducted to identifiy all potential or

existing sources of point and nonpoint contamination that could impair groundwater quality. Nonpoint sources of particular importance are sink

holes, abandoned wells, residential septic systems,

and agricultural fields under production.

Based on the potential contaminant inventory, the University of West Alabama conducted

a pilot study in Lauderdale County to determine

the relationship between on-site sewage treatment systems and bacteria in well water. One

hundred homeowners voluntarily participated in

a survey that collected information on characteristics and maintenance of the on-site system,

factors related to water usage, and environmental

information that could be related to fecal

coliform contamination. Of the 100 wells and

springs examined, 32 percent were found to

contain fecal coliform bacteria. An examination

of well depth indicated a possible relationship to

the probability of contamination. It was found

that 56.3 percent of the shallow wells were contaminated and that there was a very high probability of contamination (83 percent) when

drainfield lines ran toward the well as compared

to 23 percent probability for drainfield lines that

ran away from the well.

Educational campaign

The foundation for protection of the aquifer and

the identified recharge areas was a regional educational campaign developed to create public and

private partnerships and instill a sense of responsibility for their drinking water quality in the local

residents.

A pilot Groundwater Festival was held in

Madison County in 1998, and more than 1,200

fourth-grade students participated. Following the

successful pilot, festivals were held in three other

counties. Each festival was unique, depending on

the needs of the county and its schools. The festival organizing committees consisted of public

water system personnel, Cooperative Extension

agents, NRCS agents, regional planning and county

commission representatives, local nongovernmental

organizations, and school system representatives.

The county organizing committees remain intact,

and the festivals have continued annually. In spring

2000 approximately 5,000 fourth graders and their

teachers attended a Groundwater Festival in the

Tennessee Valley area.

A Cooperative Extension outreach program

was also designed to introduce both urban and

rural residents to the source of their drinking and

irrigation water, as well as programs and practices

that can protect groundwater. The Cooperative

Extension System worked with ADEM and NRCS

to implement the program. Public presentations

and public service announcements were the primary methods of presenting information. Other

materials created for the effort included a slide

show, a tabletop display, brochures, a karst

groundwater flow model, and questionnaires

similar to the Farm, Home, and Business*A*Syst

Program questionnaires.

Over the span of 3 years, the agents published 24 newspaper articles and aired 31 radio

spots and 7 TV programs. A 30-minute program

Alabama
10

Alaska’s rivers and streams are increasingly being

affected by recreational use. People from around

the world come to fish in some of Alaska’s fabled

waters and often return home with incredible

stories and pictures. But all of that fishing is starting to exact a price. One of Alaska’s most famous

rivers, the Kenai, has been particularly hard hit,

resulting in the closure of 22 miles of the river to

bank fishing because of concerns regarding the

Restoration Work on the Kenai:

Section 319 Funds Are Key to Youth Restoration Corps’s Success

Kenai River, Alaska

natural habitat. People trampling its banks have

caused severe damage that threatens the riverine

habitat and causes erosion. Many efforts are under

way to prevent further damage and restore the

banks where damage has already occurred.

One of the most successful efforts has been

the work of the Youth Restoration Corps (YRC), a

nonprofit organization established in 1997 to promote environmental stewardship in youth while

restoring riparian habitat along anadromous

(salmon) streams on public lands. YRC has received

319 funding for its activities since its inception.

Restoration on the Russian River

In 1997 YRC established its first program on the

Russian River, a tributary of the Kenai. The youth

restored 2,219 linear feet of riparian habitat, using

soil bags, root wads, coir logs, sod layers, and

dormant willow cuttings. YRC has continued its

restoration work on the Kenai and its tributary

Russian River every year, and to date has worked

describing the Wellhead Protection Program was

aired on the local CBS station. Presentations were

made at farmers’ meetings such as the annual

cotton and corn producers meetings, the county

fair, Master Gardener classes, Pesticide Safety

Programs, Rotary clubs, home and garden shows,

and 4-H clubs. In addition, self-help booklets and

questionnaires were distributed to businesses and

organizations. The Cooperative Extension System

estimates that more than 3 million people were

reached during the 3 years of the media campaign.

The aquifer protection program showed what

can happen when many agencies join forces to

protect a vulnerable groundwater resource. State,

federal, and local agencies collaborated to define

the aquifer characteristics and flow conditions in

the area and to use this information to build

successful educational and outreach programs.

ALASKA

Contact:

Kelly Wolf

YRC Director

P.O. Box 2416

Kenai, AK 99611

907-262-1032

yrc@gci.net

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• streambank degradation

from recreational fishing

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• streambank restoration (soil

bags, root wads, coir logs,

sod layers, dormant willow

cuttings)

Results:

• restored more than 7,700

feet of riverbanks

The Sanctuary Project is one of many efforts to restore eroded streambanks like

this one at the mouth of the Russian River.

www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dawq/nps/319pn.htm

Alaska
11

on more than 7,700 feet of some of the most

heavily impacted riverbanks in Alaska. As a result,

a river once in decline is now a river in recovery.

Fostering environmental stewardship and

partnerships

In addition to helping restore Alaska’s streams,

YRC has also passed along its environmental stewardship ethic to young people. Each summer, kids

aged 16 to 19 from local communities participate in

this work and education program. They receive

invaluable education on watersheds, healthy habitat,

and the inhabitants that

depend on a healthy ecosystem. YRC’s motto is

“We are building partners

to build environmental

ambassadors for the next

generation.”

YRC has also played a

critical role in bringing together stakeholders from

across the spectrum. Many other agencies and groups

have partnered with YRC, including the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game

and Natural Resources; the National Guard; the Forest

Service; the US Army; the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and others. Local governments, as well

as local, national, and international private businesses

and organizations, have also partnered with YRC.

YRC’s work has been well publicized each

year by a professionally produced educational

video on youths’ participation in the program and

successful completion of each project, which has

been aired several times on statewide and national

television. YRC has received many state and national awards and recognition for its work.

Although YRC has garnered many matching

funds and in-kind matches from other organizations and businesses, 319 funds have been key to

its success. The 319 funds have totaled less than

$100,000, but other funds and in-kind match and

value of the project work have been contributed

at the rate of 5 to 1.

Casey and Ivy (right) work on an undercut bank as

Dean Davidson, Assistant Director, and Vera Group

instruct youth on proper use of erosion mat.

Road and Stream Crossing Project in Tongass National Forest:

New Data Help Identify Needed Fish Habitat Restoration

Tongass National Forest, Alaska

The Tongass Road and Stream Crossing Project is a

3-year cooperative effort by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to identify

and correct fish passage problems in the Tongass

National Forest in southeast Alaska. ADF&G’s

participation was partially funded through section

319 grants. The project evaluated fish passage and

sources of sediment from nonpoint source pollution along 60 percent of the miles of permanent

(system) roads on the Tongass National Forest; the

remaining 40 percent of the permanent roads, as

Contacts:

Linda Flanders

ADF&G

907-465-4287

Larry Meshew

Tongass National Forest

907-228-6269

Chris Meade

EPA Region 10

907-586-7622

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• inadequate culverts

• forest roads

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• comprehensive

evaluation of stream

crossings/fish passage

Results:

• database on inadequate

culverts

• leveraged funding for

remediation

www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dawq/nps/319pn.htm ALASKA

Alaska
12

well as all of the temporary roads, will have the

road condition survey completed in 2001.

The project involved inspecting all stream

crossings and sources of sediment along the 2,153

miles of roads. There were 273 anadromous fish

stream culverts and 662 resident fish stream culverts evaluated for passage. Adequate fish passage requires that the weakest-swimming fish

present in a watershed can pass both ways through

a culvert at all flow levels. Although some culverts are complete barriers to both adults and

juveniles, many restrict movement of juvenile fish

only during periods of high stream flow.

Velocity is the most common cause of fish

passage restriction in culverts. If a culvert is installed at too steep a gradient or the culvert width is

significantly narrower than the streambed width,

the water velocity is increased within the culvert.

Very slight changes in the slope of a culvert and the

roughness of the substrate in the culvert can significantly change velocity and the ability of fish to

pass through the culvert during all of the times of

year when they normally move upstream or downNu’uuli Pala Lagoon Restoration Project:

Efforts Spread to Other Island Villages

Nu’uuli Village, American Samoa

American Samoa’s Governor proclaimed “Paradise 2000,” with the goal of American Samoa

being the cleanest island in the South Pacific by

the year 2000. In support of this goal, American

Samoa initiated the restoration of the Pala Lagoon wetland area, a lagoon with an important

nursery and spawning ground for fish and invertebrates. Restoration activities included identifying

and developing best management practices to

control nonpoint source pollution and supporting

public education programs on wetlands and nonpoint source pollution.

stream. Other frequent causes of fish passage

problems are perching of the culvert outlet above

the water surface, blockage by excessive substrate

or woody debris within the culvert, and structural

damage to the culvert. In most cases, multiple

factors interact to restrict fish passage.

Project results

Preliminary results indicate that 66 percent of the

culverts across salmon streams in the Tongass

National Forest are inadequate for fish passage.

Eighty-five percent of the culverts across trout

streams might also be inadequate.

The resulting database will be used to maintain

historical information on roads, identify existing and

potential risks to fish habitat and passage, and prioritize and estimate the costs of needed road maintenance and fish habitat restoration. The Forest Service has been using the data from this collaborative

project to identify needed fish habitat restoration

work. The data have already helped them obtain an

additional $500,000 in annual road maintenance

funds for the Tongass for the past 2 years.

AMERICAN SAMOA

Contacts:

Carl Goldstein

EPA Region 9 (CMD-5)

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-744-2170

goldstein.carl@epa.gov

Edna Buchan

American Samoa EPA

Executive Office Building

Pago Pago, AS 96799

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• storm water runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• litter

Project Activities:

• refuse collection

• public education programs

Results:

• absence of trash from

coastlines

American Samoa
13

A major effort in this project involved establishing trash stands in public areas surrounding

the wetlands and hiring a contractor to collect and

properly dispose of the refuse. As a result, refuse

is nearly absent from all of the coastline. Public

education about the lagoon and its resources was

also considered integral to this project’s success.

A number of signs and posters were produced,

and a wetlands fair was held in the lagoon area,

emphasizing the functions and values of wetlands.

Work continues to clean up and restore two major

streams that discharge into the lagoon. Through

the combined efforts of the American Samoa

Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA),

American Samoa Coastal Management Program

(ASCMP), Americorps volunteers, American

Samoa Community College, Department of Public Works, and village volunteers, solid waste is

being cleared from the streams and streambank

habitat is being restored over an estimated few

hundred feet (out of a thousand).

Restoration efforts have spread to other island

villages, and ASEPA now plans to work with area

businesses to continue the momentum. A contractor has completed a hydrologic assessment of the

areas, and ASEPA has completed an initial assessment of storm water control problems. ASEPA, in

cooperation with the ASCMP wetlands program

and the village mayor, will continue to monitor the

Nu’uuli village wetland areas to assess whether

improper solid waste disposal remains a problem.

American Samoa is committed to rectifying any

problems identified through enforcement under

American Samoa’s new water quality standards.

Restoration in Nutrioso Creek:

Successful Results Beginning to Show

Apache County, Arizona

Nutrioso Creek is located in the Little Colorado

River Basin in southern Apache County along the

eastern border of Arizona. It is a 27-mile-long

tributary to the Little Colorado River. Historical

livestock activity caused a loss of riparian vegetation, such as willows, which has resulted in exposed streambanks aggravated by continued large

ungulate grazing (cattle and elk). Riparian vegetation is necessary to help stabilize banks, dissipate

stream energy, reduce erosion, and naturally filter

sediment to reduce turbidity.

Nutrioso Creek was listed as an impaired

water for violating the turbidity standard for

aquatic and wildlife cold water streams. The entire

27-mile reach of Nutrioso Creek was listed on the

state’s 303(d) list, requiring the development of a

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the

watershed. The TMDL Report, issued in July

2000, focused recommendations on 3 miles of

private property and 4 miles of property owned

by the U.S. Forest Service. The turbidity impairment in Nutrioso Creek is a result of suspended

Contact:

Jim Crosswhite

EC Bar Ranch

Nutrioso, AZ 85932

jim@ecbarranch.com

ARIZONA

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• grazing

• channel degradation

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• restoration of the riparian

zone

• improved grazing

management practices

• increased irrigation

efficiencies

Results:

• reduced sedimentation

• improved wetland habitat

• projected increases in

ranching economics

Arizona

www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/non/index.html
14

Turbidity data were collected throughout the

restoration project to determine the project’s

effectiveness.

solids in the form of excessive sediment. The

excess sediment comes from the banks of the

stream itself, which is incised in some areas because of channel degradation. This downcutting

of the channel created a loss in floodplain for the

stream, resulting in higher stream velocities during

high flows. The higher velocities increased the

shear stress/force acting on the streambanks and

thus increased erosional forces.

A local model of success

Restoration of Nutrioso Creek is occurring as a

result of the cooperative efforts of area landowners.

One landowner, Jim

Crosswhite, has undertaken efforts to implement water quality

practices while at the

same time improving

ranching economics. In

1996 Crosswhite purchased the 275-acre EC

Bar Ranch, which

included 11⁄2 miles of

riparian zone within the 3 miles recently recommended for water quality improvements. During

2000 Crosswhite purchased 115 acres from two

neighbors, including another mile of the riparian

corridor downstream. He now owns about 390 acres,

including 21⁄2 miles of the riparian zone being restored.

Crosswhite has changed range management

practices and has been actively seeking grant

monies to protect the riparian corridor, help

restore the stream, and implement best management practices (BMPs). He has used a combination of 319 funding and grants obtained through

the Environmental Quality Incentive Program,

Arizona Stewardship Incentive Program, Arizona

Water Protection Fund, and Arizona Game and

Fish Department. He receives continued technical

assistance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

In 1997, at Crosswhite’s request, the NRCS

prepared a Conservation Plan for the EC Bar

Ranch. The plan recommended a number of

conservation practices designed to restore the

riparian zone, improve grazing management of

livestock, and increase irrigation efficiencies. In

1998 the riparian corridor was fenced to limit

livestock grazing to dormant winter months,

restore the wetland habitat, and raise the water

table to increase off-channel forage production. A

plan has been followed to eradicate rabbitbrush

because it causes erosion into the creek and consumes vast quantities of subsoil moisture that

could otherwise be used by productive grasses and

crops. Improvements are under way to increase

the efficiency of an irrigation system using water

from Nutrioso Creek. Portions of 20,000 feet of

earth irrigation ditches are being replaced with

permanent and temporary pipe. Water is stored in

a 250,000-gallon tank to supply a 1,500-gallonper-minute pump to deliver water to traveling gun

sprinklers covering 100 acres of upland pastures

and 2 miles of the riparian zone. A significant

portion of the 100 million gallons previously lost

due to seepage and evaporation in earth ditches

will now remain in the creek to help reduce turbidity, increase wetland habitat, and improve

forage production for dormant season grazing; it

can also be applied to upland pastures to help

reduce erosion and improve crop production.

Improvements in water quality and ranching

economics

Successful results are already beginning to show.

In a study in 1996, the Bureau of Land Management, using the Proper Functioning Condition

(PFC) score, rated the 11⁄2 miles of riparian corriArizona
15

dor on the EC Bar Ranch as “non-functional” in

places and “functional-at-risk with a downward

trend” in other places. In 1999, after implementation of some BMPs, the same area was found to

be “functional-at-risk with an upward trend.” In

2000 one reach was found to be in “proper functioning condition.” Turbidity and flow monitoring

by the Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality over high- and low-water flow events

between October 1999 and April 2001 indicated

that the level of turbidity has stabilized at 9 NTU,

while flows have

reached 50 percent

above historical high

levels. In another

vegetative study performed during a severe drought in September 2000, the creek

was dry upstream and

downstream of the 2

miles located on the

EC Bar Ranch where

water quality improvement practices had

been implemented.

This created a stable wetland habitat for the

threatened Little Colorado River spinedace and

other fish.

Ranching economics are beginning to improve through a combination of conservation

practices. A new Livestock Management Plan

(LMP) places emphasis on producing forage

during the growing season, assessing forage availability in the fall, and then acquiring stockers to be

sold in January to March. This LMP will increase

gross revenues, reduce year-round feeding expenses, allow wetlands to reach PFC, and permanently reduce turbidity.

Ongoing TMDL Implementation in Nutrioso

Creek

Implementation of the Nutrioso Creek TMDL is

ongoing, with a 5-year estimated time frame (and

a 5- to 20-year time frame to meet turbidity standards). Primary goals of TMDL implementation

include

• Increased education and public awareness.

• Decreased stream velocities using willows

and streambed vegetation, stream grade

stabilization structures, and increased

floodplains.

• Decreased sheet flow and wind erosion

contributions to the creek with removal of

rabbitbrush and increased density of

grasses as land cover.

• Arresting the downcutting of the stream

channel to promote stabilization through

BMPs, revegetation of the stream channel,

and elimination of large ungulate (cattle

and elk) grazing. With strong partnerships

and the support of area landowners, restoration of Nutrioso Creek is guaranteed.

For more information on the project, go to

www.ecbarranch.com.

Controlled burns were used to slow the spread of rabbitbrush and stimulate

the growth of new vegetation.

Through the implementation of BMPs, streams in

the riparian corridor have been returned to

“proper functioning condition.”

Arizona
16

Hackberry Ranch is located east of the Whitlock

Mountains 20 miles south of Safford, Arizona.

The area is composed of wide and comparatively

flat valleys between narrow, rugged mountains

that generally run northwest-southeast. Vegetation

is primarily desert scrub or desert grassland type.

Most of the rain received (about 9.5 inches per

year) is from intense thunderstorms in the summer, resulting in heavy runoff into the San Simon

River, which discharges sediment into the Gila

River. Winter rains are usually gentle, but they can

also result in heavy runoff after the soil is saturated. Sampling results from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality revealed that

water quality standards, particularly turbidity

standards, were being exceeded in the Gila River.

A solution: sediment retention structures

Through a 319 grant of $65,530, Boy Scouts and

Americorps employees installed sediment retention

structures on grazing land in the Whitlock Valley

watershed, which drains to the Gila River. The

structures were installed to trap sediment and slow

runoff, thereby allowing the establishment of

vegetative growth. Sediment is trapped behind

structures to reduce the discharge into the San

Sediment Reduction at Hackberry Ranch:

Reduction of 4 Tons Per Acre Realized

Stafford, Arizona

Simon. Structures were installed on two different

range sites—a limey upland with predominately

creosote bush cover, and basalt hills with grass over

malpai. The structures were constructed of rock

and/or brush. They were expected to improve

conditions on some 300 acres of grazing land and

reduce water erosion by around 95 percent.

Improved vegetative condition and sediment

reduction

The project’s 540 small sediment reduction structures are reported to have reduced erosion by an

estimated 4 tons per acre per year. Photo monitoring also reveals that the sediment retention structures are capturing sediment. Some vegetation

(primarily grasses) is beginning to grow in the

newly captured sediments. Improved grazing management is increasing the amount of ground cover

in the watershed and also reducing sediment. The

success of the project will be demonstrated with a

video, which will compare pre- and post-project

conditions. Educational materials and events such

as a slide show, photo monitoring, range transect

information, sediment accumulation measurements,

a fact sheet, a brochure, and a field day are being

developed.

ARIZONA

Contact:

Pete Brawley

P.O. Box 50

Safford, AZ 85546

520-428-2607

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• erosion from lack of

vegetation

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• sediment retention

structures

Results:

• reduction in sediment of

4 tons per acre per year

Arizona

www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/non/index.html
17

Buffalo National River Watershed Partnerships:

Partners Improve Swine Waste Management

Buffalo River Watershed, Arkansas

The Buffalo River watershed in north-central

Arkansas covers 860,000 acres. From the headwaters in the Boston Mountains, the Buffalo River

flows unobstructed for 150 miles eastward to the

confluence with the White River. Because of the

unique scenic and scientific features associated

with the free-flowing river, Congress established

the Buffalo National River Watershed in 1972 to

preserve this national treasure for future generations. The federal and state governments own 40

percent of the watershed, primarily in the headwaters and along a narrow riparian corridor of the

river. About 60 percent of the basin is privately

owned, including most of the larger tributaries.

The Arkansas Department of Environmental

Quality (ADEQ) has designated the Buffalo River

an Extraordinary Resource Water and a Natural

and Scenic Waterway, the highest water quality

designation given by the state. Although the water

quality in the Buffalo River at present is very

good, several tributaries have been affected or

threatened by agricultural activities. In 1992 there

were 39 confined animal operations within the

watershed, including 12 swine farrowing operations, one broiler operation, and 26 dairy facilities.

All of the swine operations and 10 of the dairy

facilities had Liquid Animal Waste Management

Systems (LAWMS). At that time, the ADEQ

Water Division received notice of intent from a

watershed farmer to construct a 540-sow/pig

farrowing operation adjacent to National Park

property and less than a mile from the river. Manure land application sites for the proposed swine

facility were as close as 1⁄4 mile to the river. All of

the existing watershed swine operations were

located on the southern edge of the drainage

basin in an area underlain by sandstone and shale.

If the proposed swine facility was built, it would

be the first swine operation located in such close

proximity to the river and within a karst terrain.

Both citizens and resource agencies expressed

concern over the construction and operation of a

confined swine facility so close to the river. Personnel from the ADEQ Water and Environmental

Preservation Divisions performed an investigation

of confined animal operations within the watershed, visiting and evaluating 16 swine and dairy

operations. Results of the watershed investigation

showed that most LAWMS were not being operated and maintained in a manner that would eliminate or minimize the amount of waste leaving the

farms. Subsequently, the ADEQ secured grant

money to further study the problems revealed

during the watershed investigation.

Project goals and methodology

The Buffalo River Swine Waste Demonstration

Project was initiated in 1995 with the primary goal

Contact:

Sandi Formica

Environmental Preservation

Division

Arkansas Department of

Environmental Quality

501-682-0020

formica@adeq.state.ar.us

ARKANSAS

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (confined

animal operations)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nitrogen

• phosphorus

• fecal coliform bacteria

Project Activities:

• revised storm water

diversions and waste

collection systems

• revised operational practices

(changes in phosphorus

application practices and onsite storage capacity)

Results:

• 90 percent decrease in

nutrient concentrations

www.state.ar.us/aswcc/NPS_Webpage/Mgmnt.html

Arkansas
18

of protecting the high-quality water in the Buffalo

National River watershed by working with the

local farmers and government agencies to identify

and address the problems associated with the

LAWMS. This 5-year, 319-funded project evaluated existing swine liquid waste management

practices and demonstrated the benefits of new or

improved best management practices (BMPs) in

protecting water quality. The project objectives

included evaluating the effectiveness of existing

LAWMS BMPs (including design, training, and

management aspects) by monitoring water quality

and waste management practices at cooperating

farms, improving existing BMPs or implementing

new BMPs, and evaluating changes in the water

quality and the operation of the LAWMS as a

result of improved or new BMPs implemented at

cooperating farms.

Other project goals included demonstrating

to farmers and various government agencies the

effectiveness of proper waste management at

confined animal operations in protecting water

quality. Nutrient loads in surface water were estimated before and after BMP implementation.

Storm water runoff studies also were conducted

to document nutrient loss from manure land

application sites. In addition, waste management

practices were documented before and after BMP

implementation through frequent site visits and

farm management surveys.

Waste management and water quality

improvements

New or modified BMPs were implemented at the

six cooperating farms based on site-specific problems and included the following:

• Storm water diversions were improved or

installed.

• All-weather access to LAWMS was improved or installed.

• Storage capacity for liquid waste was increased.

• Waste collection systems were repaired.

New or modified BMPs associated with

operational practices were also implemented and

included decreasing fresh water usage; performing

routine manure solids removal; and improving

overall farm nutrient management by using a

waste pumping service for solids handling, properly sampling manure holding structures to determine nutrient content, reducing phosphorus

application rates, and increasing available acres for

land application. In addition, 91 percent of the

watershed’s farmers had accumulated solids removed from the LAWMS, reestablishing the maximum available manure storage capacity at their

facilities.

As a result of the new or modified BMPs,

substantial improvements were documented in

waste management practices. Free-board problems

associated with waste storage ponds were reduced

by 66 percent at cooperating farms. Overall, farmers began to manage the manure generated at their

facilities for its fertilizer value, which reduced the

time and expense associated with the LAWMS.

Using water quality monitoring data collected on a

stream (less than 1 square mile drainage area) adjacent to a poorly operated swine facility, preliminary

estimates indicated that 3,000 pounds of total

nitrogen and 400 pounds of total phosphorus were

lost to the stream on an annual basis. Following

BMP implementation, preliminary estimates

indicated that nutrient loads in the stream were

decreased by approximately 90 percent.

Partnerships to solve complex problems

This project involved building working relationships with watershed swine farmers, the swine

industry, local Natural Resources Conservation

Service staff, the Newton County Conservation

Arkansas
19

District, and the Environmental Preservation,

Water, and Technical Services Divisions of

ADEQ to improve LAWMS operation and

swine manure management. All of the partners

in the project cooperated to evaluate the data

generated on LAWMS and to develop BMPs.

New or improved BMPs were installed by extending cost-share programs and working oneon-one with individual farmers to ensure that

all aspects of the waste system were understood. Emphasis was placed on finding economical solutions to waste management problems. Other groups, such as the Arkansas Soil

and Water Conservation Commission, the Arkansas Pork Producers, and the University of

Arkansas, contributed a considerable amount of

time, resources, and technical expertise to help

make this project a success.

Swine farmers in the Buffalo River watershed

have successfully changed their waste management practices and are using the fertilizer benefit

of the manure generated at their facilities while

minimizing their impact on the environment.

Information gained from this project has been

presented at farmer training meetings and has

helped swine producers statewide to improve their

manure management practices. All of the partners

participating in the project received an EPA Region 6 Partnerships for Environmental Excellence

Award in 1998. The award acknowledged the

contribution of each partner in cooperating to

solve complex environmental problems.

A Community Approach to Managing Manure in the

Buffalo River Watershed:

Local Watershed Assistance Program Helps Dairy Farmers

Buffalo River Watershed, Arkansas

The Environmental Preservation Division of the

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ) was awarded a section 319 grant in 1997

to evaluate the effectiveness of “dairy manure

management alternatives,” designed for facilities

with 100 cows or fewer, in minimizing nutrient

and bacteria loads leaving farm sites. The dairy

319 project worked with dairy farmers and government agencies in the Buffalo River watershed,

as well as with state and federal agencies, to develop and implement solutions to better manage

manure in the watershed.

From the beginning of the dairy 319 project,

the ADEQ project staff sought out cooperation

with other agencies, the dairy cooperative, and

dairy farmers in the Buffalo River watershed by

forming a task force with representatives from all

interested parties. Key relationships were develContact:

Sandi Formica

Environmental Preservation

Division

Arkansas Department of

Environmental Quality

501-682-0020

formica@adeq.state.ar.us

ARKANSAS

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (dairy waste)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• bacteria

Project Activities:

• dairy manure

management practices

• manure clean-out service

• comprehensive nutrient

management planning

Results:

• comprehensive local

watershed assistance

program

www.state.ar.us/aswcc/NPS_Webpage/Mgmnt.html

Arkansas
20

oped between the ADEQ project staff and the

Conservation District Boards, Natural Resources

Conservation Service staff, and the dairy farmers

in the watershed.

Most of the dairy farm owners in the Buffalo

River watershed volunteered to participate in the

dairy 319 project. The Buffalo Conservation

District staff contacted farmers and requested

individual meetings with them at their farms.

During these meetings, the project staff explained

the project to the farmers and requested their

participation on a voluntary basis. In exchange for

participation in the study, farmers hoped that the

project would result in developing better information regarding the operation of manure management systems or finding a source of funding for

improving their manure management systems.

Dairy operations and manure management

In 1994 there were 27 dairy facilities operating in

the Buffalo River watershed. Recent financial

difficulties have taken their toll on Arkansas dairy

farmers, and today only 18 dairy facilities still

operate in the watershed. Finding economic solutions to improve manure management at these

small dairy facilities continues to be a challenge.

After an exhaustive investigation into the

manure management practices of the dairy industry

in the Buffalo River watershed, it became apparent

that the 18 watershed farmers did not have the

specialized equipment required to handle the different waste streams generated from the confinement

of the cows at their farms. Although several individual problems were identified, such as ineffective

fertilizer utilization and improper land application

practices that increase the potential for contaminants to be transported in storm runoff, all of

these problems originate from the lack of adequate

manure handling equipment in the watershed.

Therefore, the funding set aside for implementing

best management practices (BMPs) in the watershed as part of the dairy 319 project was focused

on solving identified manure handling problems.

Local watershed assistance program

To help accomplish the dairy 319 project goal of

improving dairy manure management, partnerships were formed among the ADEQ, local

NRCS, and the Buffalo Conservation District to

develop a local watershed assistance program

(LWAP). The program is administered through

the Buffalo Conservation District office. It has

been designed to provide a low-cost, effective

solution to the manure handling problems identified throughout the watershed. In addition, the

program will enable farmers to receive the maximum fertilizer benefits of their dairy manure

while minimizing farm impacts on the environment. The LWAP includes the development of a

local clean-out service, long-term clean-out scheduling, initial cost-share assistance, and comprehensive nutrient management planning.

As part of the LWAP, the Buffalo Conservation

District provides a manure clean-out service for

dairy farmers and an operator to maintain and operate the equipment. Easily transportable equipment

for manure removal, including a side-discharge

manure spreader, submersible pump, and pit agitator,

will be purchased as part of the LWAP. This service

provides dairy farmers in the Buffalo River watershed with a method to handle dairy manure without

having to purchase and maintain specialized and

seldom-used equipment. Additionally, by providing

an operator, the program allows the dairy farmer

more time to spend on milk production and other

farm management responsibilities.

With the hope of increasing participation, up

to 75 percent of the cost-share money will initially

be available for watershed dairy farmers who use

the program’s manure handling service. To be

Arkansas
21

eligible for the program, the farmer is required to

develop a long-term clean-out schedule for the

dairy facility. ADEQ and NRCS staff will assist

participating dairy facilities with the development

of the 12-month clean-out schedules. This will

ensure that solids are removed within the designed

storage time for each manure management system.

 Meetings were held to present the results of

the dairy 319 project and introduce the LWAP,

Grassland Bypass Project:

Economic Incentives Program Helps to Improve Water Quality

Grassland Drainage Area, California

CALIFORNIA

Contacts:

Joe McGahan

Drainage Coordinator for the

Grassland Area Farmers

559-582-9237

jmcgahan@summerseng.com

Joe Karkoski

Central Valley Regional Water

Quality Control Board

916-255-3368

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agricultural drainage

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• selenium

Project Activities:

• establishing selenium

discharge caps

• instituting tradable loads

program

Results:

• reductions in selenium

load discharges

Agricultural runoff is one of the primary sources

of discharge to rivers and streams that do not

meet water quality standards, affecting 70 percent

of these impaired waters. This problem is particularly challenging in the western United States,

where roughly 50 million acres of land are devoted to irrigated agriculture and where agricultural drainage and runoff provide a significant

proportion of river flows during dry seasons.

The Grassland Drainage Area is an agricultural region on the west side of California’s San

Joaquin Valley. The agricultural land there is productive, but the soil contains a high level of selenium, a naturally occurring trace element.

Selenium accumulates in the agricultural drainage

water that collects in the tiles installed to drain

excess water from the fields. In 1983 this problem

received national attention when deaths and deformities in wildlife at the Kesterson Reservoir

were attributed to selenium-contaminated drainage from outside the Grassland Drainage Area. In

the early 1990s, selenium-laden drainage from the

Grassland Drainage Area was still being discharged into other federal and state wildlife refuges, threatening important ecosystems and

associated fish and wildlife.

An innovative tradable loads program

The Grassland Bypass Project is an innovative

program designed to improve water quality in the

channels used to deliver water to wetland areas. In

1996 several irrigation and drainage districts

formed the “Grassland Area Farmers,” a regional

drainage entity that includes some 97,000 acres of

irrigated farmland.

www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/npsndx.html

California

and they were attended by most of the dairy

farmers in the watershed. Farmers in the Buffalo

River watershed understand the importance of

preserving water quality and were receptive to the

LWAP. They realize that the program can help

them economically manage and utilize dairy manure while protecting water quality in the watershed in which they live.
22

The group’s initial goal was to use the San Luis

Drain, owned by the federal Bureau of Reclamation, as an outlet for agricultural drainage. To do so,

they entered into a Use Agreement with Reclamation, incorporating monthly and annual selenium

load limits. A procedure was included in the Use

Agreement to assess incentive fees if the monthly

or annual load limits were exceeded. In addition, a

maximum cap was established on the total amount

of selenium that the Grassland Area Farmers could

discharge. The Use Agreement for the project

continued until September 2001, at which time

development of a long-term plan began.

 To meet the selenium load limits, the Grassland Area Farmers have implemented a wide variety of practices, including formation of a regional

drainage entity, newsletters and other communications with the farmers, a monitoring program, an

active land management program to use subsurface

drainage on salt-tolerant crops, installation of

improved irrigation systems, installation and use of

drainage recycling systems to mix subsurface drainage water with irrigation supplies under strict limits,

and tiered water pricing.

Additionally, with support of section 319 funding, the Grassland Area Farmers developed and

adopted a “tradable loads” program to help achieve

regional water quality targets. To date, pollution

trading policies have been designed for trades between point sources, such as factories, and trades

between point sources and nonpoint sources, such as

farms. This project is unique in that it also establishes a trading program between nonpoint sources.

Under the tradable loads program, the total

allowable regional selenium load is allocated

among the member irrigation and drainage districts. The districts can then either meet their load

allocation or buy/trade selenium load allocation

from other districts. The theory is that the region

will meet its selenium load target at the lowest

possible cost because reduction measures will be

taken where they are cheapest to achieve. In addition, the program should spur innovation by

bringing selenium reduction decisions to a more

localized level. Finally, the tradable loads program

aims to distribute the costs of selenium discharge

reduction equitably among the districts.

Environmental benefits

The environmental benefits of the project to

wetland areas, including state and federal refuges,

are significant. Drainage water has been removed

from more than 93 miles of conveyance channels,

allowing for delivery of fresh water to the wetland

areas. Good-quality water from areas upslope of

the Grassland Drainage is now separate from

selenium-contaminated drainage water and can be

put to use in the Grassland Water District and in

the state and federal refuges.

Compared to data on preproject conditions

observed in 1996, year 2000 data reflect that

drainage volume has been reduced 41 percent;

selenium load, 54 percent; salt load, 29 percent;

and boron load, 14 percent. With the exception of

the very wet year 1998, data show a continuous

reduction in selenium discharge since 1995—

reductions from 16 ppb to 2 ppb in some channel

segments and reductions from 55.9 ppb to an

average of 2 ppb in others. Selenium load targets

were met every month in 1999 and 2000 and have

been met every month to date in 2001. Selenium

loads in 1999 and 2000 were the lowest ever discharged from the drainage in the past 15 years.

Other related efforts

The tradable loads program works together with

other policies in place in the Grasslands Drainage

Area. Many of the programs designed to encourCalifornia
23

age water conservation through irrigation efficiency also decrease selenium discharge. For

example, one of the member districts of the

Grassland Area Farmers pioneered a tiered water

pricing policy in which increasing block-rate pricing motivates the use of water conservation practices. Other districts in the Grassland Drainage

Area have followed suit by implementing their

own tiered water pricing policies.

Additional incentive-based water conservation programs in the Grassland Drainage Area

include low-interest State Revolving Fund loans

and land management incentives. Irrigation system improvements in the Grassland Drainage

Area include quarter-mile furrows, gated pipe,

sprinklers, and drip irrigation systems. Districts

are also pursuing methods aimed directly at selenium reduction.

In addition to providing local water quality

benefits, this project provides valuable insight for

controlling agricultural nonpoint source discharges elsewhere. Through a combination of

quantitative discharge limits and economic incentives, a model that provides for direct accountability within a system that is locally controlled is

emerging. In the long term, the use of economic

incentives might enhance implementation by

promoting cost-effectiveness and preserving

farmers’ flexibility to choose the most appropriate

pollution reduction practices.

California

Some of the worst floods in California have occurred where the Feather River, draining out of

the Western Sierra Nevada Mountains, meets the

Sacramento River in the Sacramento Valley of

Northern California. Contributing to these major

floods, as well as to localized flooding, the East

Branch of the North Fork of the Feather River

and its tributaries drained a land that had been

over-logged and overgrazed for hundreds of

years. Erosion and downcutting characterized the

landscape, not only contributing to the flooding

problem but also sending tons of sediment downstream, impairing water quality and fishery habitat.

Turning History Around:

Stream Restoration Reclaims a Meadow While Helping to Control Floods

Feather River, California

CALIFORNIA

Contact:

Jim Wilcox

Plumas Corporation

Crescent Street

P.O. Box 3880

Quincy, CA 95971

530-283-3739

plumasco@psln.com

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• over-logging

• overgrazing

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• restored natural drainage

• new channel construction

• re-watering of meadow

Results:

• Increased stream flows,

18 acre-feet or more of

water each year

• eliminated flooding

Cottonwood Creek was one such tributary.

The creek drained almost 11,000 acres of Big Flat

Meadow, which was once covered with forage

grasses and sedges. But all that had changed with

a combination of livestock grazing, fire, and timber harvesting, leading to the channel’s

downcutting, a lowered water table, and a sagebrush wasteland where once lush grasses had

flourished. Cottonwood Creek began to dry up in

the summer, adversely affecting the fishery.

A headcut had created an incised gully that

cut across the meadow. Over the years, the gully

had downcut 15 feet and captured the flow from

www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/npsndx.html
24

Cottonwood Creek, the meadow’s natural drainage

channel. Before restoration, the downcut channel

functioned like a fast-flowing drain, carrying off

rainfall and snowmelt so quickly that the meadow

was completely dewatered.

Restoring natural drainage

With 319 funding, the Feather River Coordinated

Resource Management (CRM) team began work,

with the goal of restoring the natural drainage

regime, re-watering the meadow, and regaining

wet meadow grasses and sedges. The restoration

strategy was to construct a new channel on top of

the meadow at the same location where the creek’s

historic channel had been and to fill the gully. Dirt

from the newly constructed creek channel was

used to fill the gully. At the same time, a number

of intermittent ponds were left open within the

former gully for the use of waterfowl.

Impressive results

The restoration process, dubbed “pond and plug,”

was so successful it is being used to restore other

meadows in the area. With the meadow floodplain

restored, floodflows now remain in the meadow

long enough to percolate to the underground

aquifer. Because they are saved and released as

baseflow later in the year, they no longer add to

downstream floods.

Data show the meadow is storing and later

releasing about 18 acre-feet of water a year. For

many years previous to 1997, the stream usually

had stopped flowing by the first of July. In 1997

water flowed year-round, providing cool-temperature flows for a restored fishery.

Leveraging additional restoration

The Big Flat Meadow restoration is part of a

larger vision of Plumas Corporation, a nonprofit

economic redevelopment firm that coordinates

the CRM projects. Plumas is promoting the

natural water storage concept to attract restoration dollars from downstream water contractors,

proclaiming that such meadow restoration

projects can provide water that otherwise would

run off as winter flood flows. This water is then

available later in the season, when it is most in

demand for delta fisheries and urban and agricultural communities south of the delta. Plumas

now has four additional meadow restoration

projects in progress. In one of the projects,

Plumas is experimenting with a cost-cutting

strategy that allows for the stream to build its

own channel after they plug and pond the gully.

This is a slower process, but much less expensive,

and so far it’s working.

Through the CWA section 319(h) grant program, the State Board helped fund many of the

early Plumas County projects that paved the way

for the restoration successes enjoyed today. The

most recent project to be funded is development

of a stream restoration guidance document that

will document what has been learned from the

many projects implemented.

California
25

Mining Remediation in the Chalk Creek Watershed:

Project Demonstrates Exciting Possibilities

Chalk Creek Watershed, Colorado

COLORADO

Contact:

Bruce Stover

Colorado Division of Minerals

and Geology

1313 Sherman Street

Denver, CO 80203

303-866-3567

bruce.stover@state.co.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• hard-rock mining

• acid mine drainage

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• zinc

• cadmium

Project Activities:

• diversion of mine works

drainage into constructed

wetland

• underground diversion/

earthen dam to segregate

contaminated flows

Results:

• surface diversion moved

recovery zone upstream

from 12 miles to 4 miles

below the mining activity

• underground diversion

decreased dissolved zinc

flows from 5,000 mg/L to

250 mg/L

als in Chalk Creek during spring runoff. Water

quality sampling at that time found zinc and cadmium at levels exceeding state water quality standards. The effects were reduction of the number

of brown trout and elimination of young fish for

a 12-mile stretch below the mining district. Metal

concentrations in Chalk Creek peaked in the

vicinity of the Mary Murphy Mine and the Iron

Chest tailing piles. At that time it was suspected

that interaction between mine drainage, creek

flows, and the tailings piles contributed most of

the metals in the stream.

Diversion to reduce metal loadings

A 319 project in 1991 consolidated five tailings

piles to a location just below the Mary Murphy

mill ruins. The consolidated tailings were stabilized and revegetated with grasses, forbs, and

trees. The drainage from the mine works was

diverted around the consolidation pile into a

constructed wetland between the consolidated

tailings and Chalk Creek.

Biotic sampling conducted by the Division of

Wildlife in 1994 and 1997 found the recovery

zone had moved upstream, from 12 miles to

approximately 4 miles below the mining activity.

Greater numbers of individuals, greater species

diversity, and more diverse age classes are now

Hard-rock mining in the Chalk Creek watershed

of central Colorado was extensive, continuing on

and off from the late 1870s into the 1950s. Chalk

Creek and its tributaries drain the eastern slopes

of the Collegiate Range, and the creek enters the

Arkansas River 10 miles south of Buena Vista.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife maintains the

Chalk Cliffs Fish Rearing Unit in the lower

reaches of the creek.

The single greatest contributor of heavy

metals to the creek is the Mary Murphy Mine,

located 1 mile above the town of St. Elmo. The

Mary Murphy developed steeply dipping goldsilver deposits and lead-zinc sulfide fissure-vein

deposits through extensive underground workings

on 14 different levels in the Tertiary-aged Mount

Princeton quartz-monzonite. The two lowest adit

levels, the 2200 level Golf Adit (10,400-foot

elevation) and the 1400 level Main Adit (11,200-

foot elevation), continue to discharge at a rate of

222 gallons per minute (gpm), contributing 66.2

pounds per day of zinc to Chalk Creek at high

flow. Chalk Creek was identified on Colorado’s

1998 303(d) list as impaired due to zinc; the

TMDL is scheduled for completion in 2006.

The watershed first came under scrutiny in

1986 after a fish kill at the rearing unit. The kill

was attributed to elevated concentrations of metColorado

www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/cnpsmpu.html
26

represented in the creek. However, despite the

impressive reductions in metal loadings from the

now-reclaimed tailings sites, zinc loads still exceed

state water quality standards.

Underground approaches to control continued

discharges

The Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology

(CDMG) completed hydrologic characterization at

the Mary Murphy Mine in 1997. This work suggested that most of the flow coming from the adit

portals was groundwater intercepted at discrete

fault/fracture structures within the mine workings. Based on this work, underground inspection

of the Golf Adit workings, and historical records

of mining activity, an underground source-controls approach was developed and proposed,

through the 319 NPS program and two other

Clean Water Act grant sources.

In 1998 CDMG received $310,000 through

three separate grants—$98,000 in 319 funds,

$62,400 in 104(b)(3) funds, and $150,000 in an

EPA multimedia grant—to implement underground flow characterization and control work

over a 3-year period. This project was designed to

demonstrate the source control approach, on a

pilot scale, in only one level of the underground

mine. This effort would essentially “untangle the

plumbing” of the underground metals sources by

determining where the groundwater was interacting with mineralized rock.

A loading analysis developed from flow and

metals concentration data showed that 85 percent

of the metals load exiting the Main Adit was

attributed to one inflow from the north drift on

the Mary Vein. The inflow constituted only 1.5

percent of the total discharge from the adit, but at

high flow it had a total zinc concentration of

190,200 micrograms per liter (mg/L). The contaminated inflow was traced back to an ore chute

on a high-sulfide stope on the north vein, which

drained 15 gpm. This same high-concentration

source also accounts for 70 percent of the zinc

load discharging from the Golf Adit.

Flow measurements taken along the cross-cut

adits of the Main level and Golf level indicated

that clean groundwater inflows intercepted by the

workings downstream from the contaminated stope

inflow accounted for 70 percent of the total mine

discharge volume. This proved that, at a minimum,

it is possible to segregate the clean groundwater

inflows from the mine discharge, reducing the total

discharge needing treatment from the 90 to 222

gpm (low flow–high flow) range to the 5 to 20 gpm

range. At these low volumes and high concentrations, many more passive or semipassive treatment

options are available.

Success realized

CDMG conducted a demonstration of an underground diversion to control metals loading on the

Main Adit level. A temporary, underground

earthen dam was constructed by hand to divert

the high-concentration flow. Subsequent sampling

showed this diversion reduced dissolved zinc in

the Main Adit flow from 5,000 mg/L to 250 mg/

L, essentially eliminating the need for a treatment

alternative at the 11,200-foot elevation site.

This project demonstrated exciting possibilities

for addressing acid mine drainage. If clean inflows

can be segregated, the volume of contaminated

flows is greatly reduced and the scale of treating

the remaining waste stream is greatly reduced. It

now appears technically feasible to isolate underground sources of pollution to such an extent that

it might be possible to eliminate 80 percent of the

pollution source within a mine, rather than having

to treat the discharge in perpetuity.

Colorado
27

Rio Blanco Restoration:

Adopted Rocks and Homemade Jelly Help Fund

Demonstration Project

Rio Blanco River, Colorado

COLORADO

Contact:

Dan Beley

Lower Colorado Watershed

Coordinator

Colorado Department of

Public Health and

Environment

Water Quality Control Division

303-692-3606

daniel.beley@state.co.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• stream-flow diversion

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• high water temperature

Project Activities:

• hydrologic modifications

• bank stabilization

Results:

• increased pool depth and

water levels

• well-defined channel

• increased fish population

• Fish habitat was poor.

• Sediment loads were high because of flow

changes and streambank erosion.

• Sediment supply was greater than stream

transport capacity.

• Water temperatures were high.

• Diversion and land use practices had created a wide, shallow stream with little pool

and cover habitat.

The Rio Blanco is classified as an Aquatic Life

Cold Water Class 1, Recreation Class 1 stream.

Those uses, however, are not attained, resulting in

the river’s being listed on Colorado’s 1998 303(d) list

for sediment. A Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL) is scheduled for June 30, 2006. Colorado

also holds an in-stream flow water right that provides

for 29-cubic-foot-per-second (cfs) flows from May 1

to September 30 and for 20-cfs flows from October

1 through April 30. The right was appropriated in

1974 to protect fish and aquatic life in the river;

however, the physical structure of the river precluded adequate habitat under those flows.

The diversion had created a completely new

flow regime in the river. The principle being applied in Colorado’s Nonpoint Source Management

Program for Hydrologic Modification is to make

the best use of the water remaining in the stream

and to restore the stream to its designated uses.

The Rio Blanco, a

tributary to the San

Juan River, originates

at the Continental

Divide in Archuleta

County, Colorado.

Elevation ranges from more than 13,000 feet to

around 6,400 feet at the confluence with the

San Juan River. Land ownership is mixed: the

headwaters lie within the Southern San Juan

Wilderness area, and the confluence is on the

Southern Ute Reservation. Private land is interspersed, but primarily in the lower 12 miles.

The river runs about 30 miles from source to

confluence. The watershed averages about 250

inches of snow in the winter and 13 inches of

rain in the summer.

In the 1950s Congress appropriated funding to

construct the San Juan–Chama Diversion Tunnel.

The tunnel would take water from the Rio Blanco,

which is part of the Colorado River Basin, under

the Divide into the Rio Grande Basin for use in

New Mexico. The diversion is located about 12

miles from the confluence.

The system began operation in 1971 and

diverted approximately 70 percent of the in-stream

flow of the Blanco. A basin summary prepared in

1990 by the U.S. Forest Service found that

The J-hook in the foreground is typical of the

structures installed in the river. It directs stream flow

toward the thalwag and away from the banks.

www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/cnpsmpu.html

Colorado
28 Colorado

The diversion altered the river’s natural flow regime

and adversely affected fish habitat.

Aquatic habitat was improved by adding a drop

structure. The pool in this area is 7 feet deep and

supports trout.

Hydrologic

modification projects

In 1997 the San Juan

Water Conservancy

District and Colorado

Water Conservation

Board initiated a demonstration project

under Colorado’s

Nonpoint Source

Management Program for hydrologic modification. The goal of the project was to improve

stream water quality and aquatic habitat through

(1) reducing low-flow water temperatures by

narrowing and deepening the channel and creating

overhead and in-stream cover and (2) reducing

sediment loading by stabilizing banks and enhancing sediment transport capacity by increasing the

stream width/depth ratios.

A total of $96,000 of 1997 section 319 funds

were used in the demonstration. Matching funds

totaling more than the required $64,000 were provided by contributions from the San Juan Water

Conservancy District, Southwest Water Conservation District, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Archuleta County

Commissioners, Pagosa Public Schools, Wetlands

Hydrology, Lower Blanco Property Owners Association, and local landowners.

Match contributions were collected in

unique ways, including an “Adopt a

Rock” campaign that

allowed people to

sponsor a rock for use

in the restoration.

Also, the local homeowners association sold

homemade chokecherry jelly, offering the proceeds as match. The Bureau of Reclamation

provided a significant contribution by providing

staff and equipment to haul large boulders to

strategic sites along the river.

Early signs of restoration

The project overcame considerable opposition on

the part of some adjacent landowners, who feared

the reconstruction would adversely affect the water

level in their alluvial wells. The project was finally

constructed in fall 1999 over 1.1 miles of the river

below the San Juan/Chama diversion. Some of the

early observations include the following:

• Pools within the river are now nearly 7 feet

deep; previously, they were nonexistent or

less than 2 feet deep.

• The channel is well defined and meanders,

instead of braiding through the width of

the riverbed.

• Water levels in alluvial wells have increased

by 7 to 10 inches.

• Within a week of the completion of construction, children were again catching 10-

to 16-inch fish in this segment of the river.

These observations are particularly notable

because the river was at its lowest flow of the

year, approximately 17 cfs, when data were collected. Data collected after construction are still

being evaluated.

The goal for the Rio Blanco has now expanded from demonstration to full restoration of

the impaired segment of the river. An application

has been made for FY2001 319 funding to complete the next 2.2 miles, with the intent of restoring the entire 12-mile segment.
29

Center Springs Pond Restoration Project:

Skaters and Fish Return to Pond

Manchester, Connecticut

CONNECTICUT

Contact:

Mel Cote

EPA Region 1

1 Congress Street

Suite 1100

Boston, MA 02203

617-918-1553

cote.mel@epa.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban storm water runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

• trash

Project Activities:

• trash rack

• sedimentation forebay

• dredging of pond

Results:

• debris and duckweed

blooms eliminated

• return of fishery

• 1,200 cubic yards of

sediment removed in

1998

Center Springs Pond is the central feature of a

55-acre urban park in the center of Manchester,

Connecticut, in the Hockanum River watershed.

Center Springs Park and its pond are valued

resources, providing residents with a variety of

recreational opportunities. The pond has a surface area of 6.1 acres and is fed by Bigelow

Brook. From the late 1920s through the mid1970s, the pond was a popular site for skating

and fishing, attracting people from all parts of

Manchester. In addition, during the warm

weather people were drawn to the area to enjoy

picnic lunches or simply to sit by the pond and

enjoy the scenery.

Environmental problems

Bigelow Brook, which feeds Center Springs Pond,

runs through a heavily urbanized area. As a result,

the brook receives high volumes of storm water

runoff. This storm water carries with it pollutants

such as sediment (from road sanding and construction activities), nutrients (from atmospheric

deposition, septic systems, and lawn fertilizer),

and trash (everything from common litter to

shopping carts).

The filling of the pond with sediment and

nutrients contributed to weed growth and increased

water temperatures by allowing sunlight to penetrate to the pond’s bottom. The combined effect

of the sediments, increased temperature, and dieoff of the algae and weeds consumed oxygen and

led to low-dissolved-oxygen conditions. These

impacts rendered the pond inhospitable to most

species of fish and too shallow for ice-skating. The

trash, bottles, cans, plastic containers, tires, lumber,

logs, shopping carts, and even a doghouse made the

park a less appealing place to visit.

The solution

The goals of the Center Springs Pond Restoration

Project were to improve water quality in the pond

and to reestablish the pond and surrounding area

as a focal point for recreational activity in the

town of Manchester.

The project’s design was based on the recommendations of a diagnostic/feasibility study conducted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) Lakes Management Program on behalf of the Town of Manchester. It included the following components:

• Installation of a trash rack upstream of the pond.

A trash rack collects large debris before

items enter the pond. The trash is held in

areas easily cleaned by the town maintenance crew.

• Construction of a sedimentation forebay at the

eastern end of the pond. The forebay accumulates sediment entering from Bigelow

Brook in a confined area for easy removal.

The forebay is separated from the main

www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/nps/npsplsum.htm

Connecticut
30 Connecticut

pond by a gabion wall/weir. The wall/weir

directs the flow to the southern end of the

forebay and extends the detention time,

allowing sediments to settle before water

enters the main body of the pond. The

town also developed and has implemented

a pond maintenance plan, which includes

periodic sediment removal.

• Dredging of the pond. Approximately 25,000

cubic yards of material was removed. The

pond was excavated to the bottom of the

soft sediment, and the materials were

trucked to a landfill. At the landfill, the

material was stockpiled, dewatered, and

then used as landfill cover.

Project partners and funding

This project was a combined effort by the Town

of Manchester, the CT DEP, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), and several private

consultants and contractors. The total cost of the

project was $342,900 (including construction of

buildings and other park infrastructure). It was

covered by $250,000 from CT DEP special bond

act funds authorized by the state's General Assembly, $62,900 from federal Clean Water Act

section 319 funds, and $30,000 from Town of

Manchester capital improvement funds.

Section 319 funds were dedicated to nonpoint source controls in and around the pond, and

other watershed management activities. Nonpoint

source controls included the construction of the

trash rack and the sedimentation forebay. As a

condition of the section 319 grant, CT DEP and

EPA required the town to conduct watershed

management activities, including a review of

street sweeping programs, a public education

program (in the form of mailed pamphlets and

newspaper articles), and an investigation of highnutrient-loading areas.

Promising results

The Center Springs Pond Restoration Project was

completed in 1995. Since then, there have been

many noticeable changes. The most obvious of

these is the improved appearance of the pond and

the park. Before the restoration project, Center

Springs Pond’s extensive duckweed growth rendered the pond unattractive for recreation and

unsuitable for most fish. Since the project was

completed, the duckweed blooms have been

eliminated. Floating debris has been brought to an

end by the trash rack and watershed management

activities. Watershed residents have done their part

by responding to public education and helping to

reduce the amount of litter and other household

and yard pollutants.

Before the project, sedimentation of the

pond and winter draw-downs for weed control

had reduced the surface area, greatly limiting iceskating for the past 20 years. Now the pond once

again is used for skating. Perhaps the most astonishing change is the return of fishing as a viable

recreational opportunity. Before the restoration

project, the town’s annual fishing derby, which

usually attracts 600 to 700 people each spring, was

held at other ponds in the region. Since the

project was completed, the annual fishing derby

has been held at Center Springs Pond, which is

stocked with trout and bass.

The Town of Manchester now has a regular

maintenance program for the pond and park that

includes weekly litter pickup and periodic dredging of the sedimentation forebay. Other amenities

have been added since the completion of the

restoration project, including a fishing pier/lookout point on the gabion wall and a picnic area.

Future plans

Future plans for Center Spring Pond include

regular maintenance of the immediate park
31

Lake Waramaug Watershed Agricultural

Waste Management System:

One Farm Can Make a Difference

Washington, Warren, and Kent, Connecticut

CONNECTICUT

Contact:

Mel Cote

EPA Region 1

1 Congress Street

Suite 1100

Boston, MA 02203

617-918-1553

cote.mel@epa.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (dairy farm)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• farm waste management

(waste collection, storage,

and upland spray-irrigation)

Results:

• reductions in nutrients

(phosphorus) and

bacteria, allowing

compliance with water

quality standards

Lake Waramaug is in the Housatonic River watershed in northwestern Connecticut in the towns of

Washington, Warren, and Kent. This deep, 680-acre

lake is the scenic center of the area’s tourism business and is used for a variety of recreational activities, including boating, fishing, and swimming.

Waramaug is the second largest natural lake in the

state. The lake’s 14.3-square-mile watershed is

largely forested, with land use consisting of lowdensity residential development and several farms.

Much of the lake’s shorefront is developed with

large-lot, single-family homes. Two state parks are

located on and near the lake, Lake Waramaug State

Park and Mount Bushnell State Park.

Problems caused by overenrichment

Twenty-five years ago, thick mats of algae covered

the surface of Lake Waramaug, causing serious

concern among property owners and local businesses. Dead fish washed ashore and became food

for seagulls, raccoons, and other wildlife. The cause

of the problem was overenrichment caused by

runoff of phosphorus and other nutrients from

farms, lawns, roads, and septic systems. These

nutrients are considered a significant nonpoint

source problem in the Housatonic River watershed.

The nutrients fed the growth of algae, which

turned the lake’s surface green every summer. When

the algae died and sank to the bottom, the decomposition of the organic material consumed the oxygen

that the fish and other aquatic life needed to survive.

The algae also prevented sunlight from reaching

native aquatic plants, which were both a food source

and refuge for aquatic organisms.

By the mid-1990s, many of these problems

had been solved through the joint efforts of the

three watershed towns, area residents, and state and

federal government agencies. However, water

quality monitoring in Sucker Brook, which feeds

the lake, was still finding elevated levels of nutrients

and bacteria. Stream monitoring determined that a

single dairy farm was the largest remaining source

of nutrients in the watershed. This farm houses

255 cows, heifers, and calves, and the milking room,

www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/nps/npsplsum.htm

grounds. There are also plans to rebuild a picnic

pavilion/observation deck over the foundation of

the old skating lodge, which burned down. A

concrete fishing pier, which is present in addition

to the recently added pier, will be “dressed up” to

match the décor of the new skating lodge.

Connecticut

Also proposed are stone dust trails throughout the

park and a picnic pavilion at the top of the sliding

hill. It is easy to see that, through the Center

Springs Pond Restoration Project, this picturesque

place in Manchester has been restored as an important recreational resource for the community.
32 Connecticut

corn bunker silos, and barnyards are located uphill

and adjacent to Sucker Brook. Runoff from the

farm, containing high concentrations of nutrients

and bacteria, entered the stream, which transported

the pollutants to the lake.

Solving the problems

One of the first steps to solving Lake Waramaug’s

problems was the formation of the Lake

Waramaug Task Force in 1975. In 1978 the Task

Force, with assistance from federal and state

agencies and a private consultant, completed the

Lake Waramaug Management Plan, which contained

recommendations on how to restore and protect

water quality. Major in-lake management projects

include a 2.0 million-gallon-per-day “withdrawaltreatment-reinjection system”; two-layer aeration

systems that mix the top water with the mid

depths of the lake to create a large zone of cold,

well-oxygenated water; construction of a channel

through the delta formed at the Sucker Brook

outlet to direct cold, well-oxygenated stream flow

to the oxygen-depleted bottom waters; and several

in-stream sediment collection basins. Numerous

watershed nonpoint source controls were also

established, including streambank and lakeshore

erosion stabilization projects, a dairy farm manure

storage system, and a vineyard wine waste lagoon.

As described previously, however, one major

pollution source remained unchecked. To address

this problem, in 1999 the farmer requested technical

assistance from the Litchfield County Soil and Water

Conservation District and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to plan, design, and build a

farm waste management system. The Task Force

raised private funds and, through the conservation

district, also solicited financial assistance from the

towns that border the lake and the Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection (CT

DEP). The CT DEP subsequently applied for and

received section 319 funds from EPA. The farmer

applied for funds through the USDA Farm Services

Agency and the Connecticut Department of Agriculture and a loan from the Lake Waramaug Task

Force.

Monitoring results

Water quality monitoring data collected since

completion of the project indicate that the waste

management system has significantly reduced

pollution levels in Sucker Brook and in Lake

Waramaug. Nutrient levels (especially phosphorus)

in the stream have been drastically reduced. Before the waste management system was constructed, the farm was contributing more than 20

percent of the total phosphorus entering Lake

Waramaug. Now, instead of flowing into Sucker

Brook and Lake Waramaug, the nutrient-rich

runoff from the farm area is collected, stored, and

spray-irrigated on farm fields located hundreds of

yards from Sucker Brook. This allows the nutrients to become incorporated into the soil, supporting plant growth on the farm rather than

algae growth in the lake. Bacteria levels are also

lower than before the water management system

was installed, allowing the lake to meet state water

quality standards for swimming and other primary-contact recreation.

Continuing the success

To ensure the future protection of water quality,

the farm waste management system needs to be

regularly inspected and maintained. It is expected

that the dairy farm (with the assistance of local

conservation organizations) will continue to take

measures necessary to protect water quality in

Sucker Brook and Lake Waramaug by following

through with a new operation and maintenance

plan established for the farm. The Lake
33

Partners Upgrade Septic Systems in Coverdale Crossroads:

Quality of Life Improved for Residents

Sussex County, Delaware

DELAWARE

Contact:

Sharon Webb

Delaware Department of

Natural Resources and

Environmental Control

302-739-8014

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• failing septic systems

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• ammonium

• nitrate

• phosphorus

Project Activities:

• upgraded septic systems

and wells

Results:

• upgraded 100 septic

systems and more than

50 wells

The Coverdale Crossroads Community is in Sussex County, Delaware. Failing septic systems were

resulting in contaminated drinking water wells and

nutrient loss to surface water and groundwater

supplies. Prior to restoration, most residents utilized a cesspool, a failed septic system, or no

system at all.

Septic system upgrade

In October 1997 the Delaware Department of

Natural Resources and Environmental Control

(DNREC) entered into a 3-year partnership with

the Coverdale Crossroads Community and First

State Community Action to upgrade septic systems

and wells. Greenwood Trust Bank and the Sussex

Conservation District provided matching funds.

During the first year of implementation, the

project had to overcome a number of unanticipated obstacles, resulting from some members of

the community living in substandard housing. An

upgraded septic system and well are of little use

without electricity and plumbing. Near the end of

the first year, DNREC joined forces with the

Delaware Housing Authority, and donated homes

were provided to those in need.

The local Prison Boot Camp and Work Release Program provided laborers for demolishing

the substandard homes and clearing debris and

trees to make way for subsequent installation of

new septic systems and wells. Residents contributed by helping to remove debris and by providing

temporary housing for those displaced. The final

www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Library/NPS/NPSPlan.pdf

Project Partners and Funding

This project was a combined effort by LCSWCD, CT DEP, USEPA, USDA, Lake Waramaug Task Force,

and the dairy farmer. The total cost of the project was $211,864. Funding was provided by the

following organizations:

$33,000 from an EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 grant awarded by CT DEP

$35,000 from the USDA Farm Service Agency (Agricultural Conservation Program)

$40,000 from the Connecticut Department of Agriculture

$61,864 from the farm through a loan agreement with the Lake Waramaug Task Force

$642,000 from the USDA NRCS for in-kind and technical services

Waramaug Task Force and local health departments will continue to monitor the lake and its

feeder streams to determine whether the farm

waste management system and other best management practices are working to maintain and improve water quality. As a Task Force member

Delaware

noted in a recent local newspaper article, “This is

a success story, but it wouldn’t take much to turn

it around. There has to be constant monitoring,

constant improvement. Everything has to be kept

working, brought up to date . . . .” (The New

Milford Times, July 21, 2000).
34 District of Columbia

year has added a partnership with the Resource

Conservation and Development Council, which is

lending its support in coordinating the last year of

project implementation and installation of new

housing.

Most of the replacement systems are gravity

systems, with the exception of a few low-pressure

pipe systems. Follow-up education on maintenance of the system is provided to each homeowner after installation.

Benefits to water quality and residents

By the end of September 2000, about 100 septic

systems and more than 50 wells had been upgraded. Based on studies conducted in the Inland

Bays watershed, the gravity systems have an efficiency rating for nutrient removal as follows:

ammonium, 25 percent; nitrate, 35 percent; and

total phosphorus, 90 percent. The efficiency rating

for the low-pressure pipe systems is as follows:

ammonium, 94 percent; nitrate, 66 percent; and

total phosphorus, 90 percent.

Before the failing systems were replaced,

remediation of nutrient loads was negligible.

Through partnerships, this project has provided

direct environmental benefits to groundwater and

surface waters while improving the standard of

living for many residents of Coverdale Crossroads.

Marsh Restoration and Island Enhancement Projects

at Kingman Lake:

 Tidal Wetland Habitats Re-created

Anacostia River, District of Columbia

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Contact:

Dr. Hamid Karimi

D.C. Department of Health

51 N Street, NE, 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20002

202-535-2240

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• wetlands dredging/filling

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• wetland restoration

• recreational/habitat

enhancements

Results:

• mudflat transformed into

wetland

• monitoring in progress

Kingman Lake is not a true lake, but a 110-acre

tidal freshwater impoundment created during the

1920s and 1930s to provide a recreational boating

area for District of Columbia residents. The lake is

connected to the tidal Anacostia River by two inlets

located at the northern and southern ends of

Kingman Island, a wooded 94-acre dredge/fillcreated island that separates the lake from the river.

Historically, the area emerged as an expansive

freshwater tidal marsh, renowned for its migratory

sora rail population. As wetlands were dredged

and filled, many such migratory birds stopped

coming. The open water tidal “lake” gradually

Years of sedimentation had turned Kingman Lake, once a tidal marsh, into a

mudflat.

www.environ.state.dc.us/watershed/
35

filled with sediment until the dominant low tide

feature was a mudflat. Because of the lack of

suitable substrate elevation, most species of emergent marsh vegetation have not been established

over the existing mudflats.

From mudflats to wetlands

With support of section 319 funding, in 2000 the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District,

led the restoration of 42 acres of the freshwater

tidal emergent wetland in Kingman Lake. Other

key partners included the U.S. National Park

Service, the D.C. government, and neighboring

Prince George’s County in Maryland. The primary

goal of the restoration plan is to restore historically significant wetlands, thereby enhancing the

habitat diversity and structure of an area currently

dominated by unvegetated tidal mudflats.

To re-create vegetated tidal wetland habitats,

the morphology of the lake was altered by filling

and grading existing lake mudflats with Anacostia

River dredge material. Establishing new (higher)

substrate levels on Kingman mudflats was key to

creating an environment suitable for the growth

of emergent wetland macrophytes, which can

tolerate only moderate levels of tidal inundation.

Approximately 700,000 emergent wetland

plants were planted in the newly elevated and

graded mudflat areas. It was soon discovered that

goose exclusion fencing would be necessary to

prevent the plants from becoming a “free lunch”

for the lake’s resident Canada goose population.

The fencing will allow the plants to gain a foothold during their first crucial growing season.

In concert with the wetland restoration work,

Kingman Island is also being restored. The restoration primarily involves the removal of materials

that historically have been dumped on the island.

A number of low-impact actions are also under

consideration, including the removal of invasive

exotic plants. Also being considered is the construction of ramps and a floating boat dock for

canoes and kayaks, as well as an interpretive nature trail for the recreational enjoyment of District residents. Enhancement of habitat for resident and migrating wildlife is also considered a

priority. It might take the form of bird boxes,

nesting areas for ospreys and eagles, and bat

boxes, as well as artificial deadfalls and snags for

species-specific nesting.

Ongoing monitoring

A prerestoration study will establish a baseline

data set of aquatic biota and water quality parameters by collecting monthly water quality data and

conducting a multiyear summer seasonal assessment of the benthic macroinvertebrate, fish,

plankton, and bird communities living in or using

Kingman Lake. After restoration is complete, the

study will continue for 5 years to determine the

relative impact of the restoration efforts on the

water quality and the aquatic community.

Implementing these two significant restoration

projects in the main stem of the Anacostia River is

important not only for the improvements to wildlife habitat or water quality. The projects also demonstrate the success of large-scale environmental

restoration projects involving multiple federal and

local government agencies and funding sources.

The restoration project has succeeded in transforming Kingman Lake back into

a marsh.

District of Columbia
36

The Watts Branch Initiative:

Community Involvement Key to Success

Anacostia River, District of Columbia

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Contact:

Dr. Hamid Karimi

D.C. Department of Health

51 N Street, NE, 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20002

202-535-2240

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban runoff

• sewer overflows

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• fecal coliform bacteria

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• streambank stabilization

• education/outreach

Results:

• monitoring in progress

• riparian buffers

established (1,600 plants)

Watts Branch is the largest and one of the most

polluted tributaries of the Anacostia River. It

flows from Maryland into the District of Columbia for 4 miles. About 80 percent of the stream’s

watershed is urban residential and commercial

property; less than 15 percent is forested. Because

of its location, the stream corridor is affected by

runoff from a primarily impervious area. It is

plagued by trash and debris dumped into the

stream by local and upstream residents and businesses. The tributary is also a source of excessive

fecal coliform bacteria loadings attributed to

overflows from faulty sewers.

The Environmental Health Administration of

the District’s Department of Health established the

Watts Branch Task Force to coordinate restoration

of the Watts Branch watershed. The Task Force

created the multiphased Watts Branch Watershed

Initiative, which includes streambank stabilization

and restoration, education and community outreach, and a strategy to prevent illegal dumping.

Public-private partnerships

The success of the Watts Branch Task Force has

primarily been the result of its ability to effectively

create partnerships between the public and private

sectors and promote a high level of community

involvement. Some 1,600 native trees, shrubs, and

plants have been established to create and extend

the Watts Branch riparian buffer. Through the

efforts of the Task Force, in partnership with the

Anacostia River Business Coalition and the Earth

Conservation Corps, the work was funded largely

through a section 319 grant. Section 319 funding

also supported streambank stabilization efforts in

the spring of 2001, in partnership with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources

Conservation Service.

 Money from Washington, D.C.’s Summit Fund

supported the purchase of three surveillance cameras that are now being used by the Environmental

Crimes Unit of the Metropolitan Police Department to monitor illegal dumping in and around

Watts Branch. A grant from the Summit Fund also

supported a community education day in the park,

which helped to spread the word about illegal

dumping, nonpoint source pollution, and the importance of riparian buffer plantings to the stream.

District of Columbia

www.environ.state.dc.us/watershed/

Many young people from the District helped plant trees throughout the Watts

Branch watershed.
37

Ever know of a natural area that the users “loved

to death”? The Blackwater River and the adjacent

Blackwater State Forest in the Florida panhandle

are good examples. Primitive roads created for and

by the timber industry and by recreational users,

including canoeists, tubers, horse riders, and hunters, have led to serious soil erosion problems in the

forest. Roads leading to or along the river and its

tributaries have caused erosion in the sandy, exposed soils of the watershed and along the shoreline, resulting in heavy sedimentation to the river.

Stabilization project

The Florida Division of Forestry treated 17 roads

on the river’s south side, closing 14 and repairing 3.

Methods of closing and repairing the roads varied

depending on the slope, likelihood of continued

traffic, natural stabilization mechanisms in place,

sources of water creating the erosion, and suitability of the best management practices (BMPs). The

objective in each case was to remove or redirect the

source of water flow causing the problem and to

Blackwater River Restoration:

Project Demonstrates Mechanics of Erosion and Effectiveness of BMPs

Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida

stabilize the soil. The overall project cost was

$55,928, of which $25,268 was provided by a section 319 grant to the Florida Division of Forestry.

Encouraging results

Despite willful damage to treated areas by locals

(subsequently repaired), the project was considered

a success because sediment production from the

roads was reduced and the restored areas were

returned to timber production. The project taught

the forest staff that soil cover is the key to reducing

soil loss. The cover can be in the form of erosion

fabric, vegetation, or mulch. Permanent native

vegetation is expensive to procure, especially for

large restoration areas. To continue this type of

work on a forest-wide basis and make a significant

impact on the soil erosion problems at a reasonable

cost, some other means of revegetation will need

to be used. The forestry staff believes transplanting

forest materials will be one of the solutions.

This demonstration project helped state

foresters better understand the causes and mechaFLORIDA

Contact:

Brad Bole

Project Coordinator

3120 Highway 36 West

Hartselle, AL 35640

256-773-6543 (ext. 107)

bbole@al.nrcs.usda.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• roads (timber, recreational)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• road stabilization

• redirection of water flow

Results:

• reduced sediment

delivery

www.dep.state.fl.us/water/slerp/nonpoint_stormwater/319h/documents/npsmgmtpln2000/npsmgmtprog2000.pdf

Plans for the future

Future work will address riparian and aquatic

habitat concerns, as well as water quality impacts

from sediment and nutrients. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service will provide monitoring assistance

and will use the information it gathers to develop

designs for areas still in need of stream restoration. The projected completion date for the

stream restoration work is October 2004. The

District of Columbia anticipates that continued

stream restoration work will be funded through

the District’s 319 nonpoint source program.

Florida
38 Florida

nisms of erosion and sedimentation. Just as important, the project allowed the foresters to learn

more about the effectiveness of BMPs that can be

used to minimize erosion problems and where

various BMPs work best. Consequently, state

foresters have developed a management plan to

continue addressing the erosion problems resulting from dirt roads and gullies that are negatively

affecting the quality of the Blackwater River, an

Outstanding Florida Water. Implementation of

the management plan is proceeding using a variety

of funding sources, including section 319 grants

from the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, state funds, user fees, and in-kind

contributions by forest users.

Brevard County’s Urban Storm Water Retrofitting Projects:

Lessons Learned About Design, Location, and Monitoring

Brevard County, Florida

FLORIDA

Contact:

Ron Jones

Brevard Surface Water

Improvement Division

2725 Judge Fran Jamieson

Way

Suite A203

Viera, FL 32940

321-633-2014

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban storm water runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

• metals

• suspended solids

Project Activities:

• (Indialantic storm water

retrofitting) baffle boxes in

storm drain pipes

• (Indialantic) wet detention

pond

• (Micco area retrofitting)

exfiltration trenches

• (Micco) inlet system

Results:

• (Indialantic) 67 cubic

meters of sediment

removed per year

• (Indialantic) 60 percent

less discharge of

pollutants

• (Micco) 14,076 pounds of

sediment removed

• (Micco) 80 percent less

discharge of pollutants

With the implementation of the state storm water

rule in 1982, Florida became the first state in the

country to require that storm water from all new

development be treated. However, reducing the

pollutant loadings discharged from older drainage

systems is also essential to the protection and restoration of water bodies throughout Florida. The

Indian River Lagoon, an estuary of national significance and a water body of importance to both

Florida and Brevard County, has been adversely

affected by storm water discharges from older

drainage systems. Fortunately, Florida’s Surface

Water Improvement and Management program, in

conjunction with the Indian River Lagoon National

Estuary Program, has developed a comprehensive

watershed management plan to restore this important water body. A significant component of this

plan is the implementation of urban storm water

retrofitting projects through partnerships between

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the St. Johns River Water Management District, and local governments.

Brevard County has implemented a storm

water utility fee to help fund retrofitting projects,

and its storm water program has initiated several

www.dep.state.fl.us/water/slerp/nonpoint_stormwater/319h/documents/npsmgmtpln2000/npsmgmtprog2000.pdf

Retrofitting Project Costs

Project Drainage area Cost

Alamanda 1.8 acres $14,376

Cedar Lane 0.9 acres $25,027

Franklin (2) 36 acres $33,362

Indialantic I 25 acres $13,580

Monaco 54 acres $32,835

Pinetree 134 acres $33,925

Puesta Del 2.2 acres $25,181

Rivershore 7.2 acres $ 9,463

Riverside 161 acres $24,944

Sunset Park 24 acres $23,422
39

projects leading to a reduction in the pollutant

loadings discharged to the lagoon. The county has

received a number of section 319 grants to assist

in funding these projects. The costs of the retrofitting projects are provided in the table.

Indialantic area retrofitting

Several storm water retrofitting projects have been

conducted in the town of Indialantic to reduce

pollutant discharge to the Indian River Lagoon.

The first phase of retrofitting involved the installation of numerous baffle boxes (sediment boxes)

at the end of existing storm drain pipes to capture

sediment before it is discharged. The frequency of

cleanout depends on rainfall frequency, land use,

and drainage basin size but has averaged six

cleanouts per baffle box per year. The maintenance records for 24 baffle boxes show that 202

cubic meters of sediment were removed from

these boxes over a 3-year period.

Later phases of retrofitting in this area focused on treating storm water from an urbanized

residential watershed of 120 contributing acres.

The best management practices installed to correct storm water quality and quantity problems

included construction of an exfiltration trench

that discharges to a wet detention pond. The pond

was planted with cordgrass and pickerelweed to

provide nutrient removal and cattail control. The

new sideslope Geo Web cells were planted with

blanket flowers and sunflowers for additional

erosion control.

Based on Florida’s rainfall records and the

design treatment volume of the exfiltration system, it is removing about 60 percent of the pollutants that would have been discharged. Water

quality sampling of several storm events showed

that the pond is providing significant treatment of

storm water pollutants through settling and biological processes. Overall, the treatment system

appears to be removing most nutrients, metals,

and suspended solids from the storm water before

discharge to the Indian River Lagoon.

Micco area retrofitting

The Micco area of Brevard County is an urbanized single-family residential area that was built

before the storm water treatment requirements.

The area’s existing storm water system provided

no treatment of the area’s runoff, which was

discharged to the Sebastian River and ultimately to

the Indian River Lagoon. Prior to this project,

Main Street ran directly down to its lowest point

at a boat ramp. Because there were no curbs or

gutters, storm water ran down the edges of the

pavement, causing considerable erosion and transporting a lot of sediment into the river.

To arrest the direct discharge of storm water,

the county developed a trench system designed to

remove sediments. The county installed 1,536

linear feet of exfiltration trenches down the center

of the road along with asphalt curbing to direct

flow to inlets installed along the road’s edge. The

trenches capture 0.39 inch of runoff from the

15.5-acre watershed, and pretreatment is provided

by sumps and skimmers at the inlets.

For a variety of reasons, monitoring on this

project proved to be problematic. However, maintenance activities were able to document the

effectiveness of the trench system in removing

sediments. The inlet system was cleaned twice

during the postconstruction monitoring period,

and a total of 14,076 pounds of sediment was

removed. In addition, based on Florida’s rainfall

patterns and the diversion of runoff into the

trenches, it is estimated that the system removes

80 percent of the pollutants that previously were

discharged to the Sebastian River.

Florida
40 Georgia

Lessons learned

Many valuable lessons were learned from this

project related to design, location, and monitoring.

Brevard County staff are applying this information

to current and future projects designed to address

water quality and quantity problems throughout the

Micco watersheds. Other local governments in

Florida also are benefiting from the project as they

develop and implement storm water master plans

to reduce storm water pollution.

Broad River Streambank Stabilization Project:

Tree Revetments Rescue Eroding Banks

Northeastern Georgia

GEORGIA

Contact:

Jim Wren

Oconee River RC&D

Council, Inc.

P.O. Box 247

Watkinsville, GA 30677

706-769-7922

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• erosion

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• tree revetment

Results:

• decreased sediment loads

• monitoring in progress

Streambank erosion on the streams and rivers of

Georgia continues to be a growing problem.

Erosion is particularly evident in the Broad River

Watershed District of northeastern Georgia. The

accepted consensus is that it is much easier, and

more cost-effective, to prevent erosion before it

occurs than to restore streambanks after the damage has been done. However, because in many

cases erosion already exists, new and better ways

of solving the problem are being explored.

One of the methods being tried in the Broad

River watershed is the technique of installing

“tree revetments.” New to Georgia, this technique

is relatively inexpensive when compared to other

types of streambank stabilization techniques

currently in use.

Demonstrating the technique

The Chestatee-Chattahoochee Resource Conservation and Development Council, through a 319

grant from the Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Environmental Protection Division, is

implementing a project designed to demonstrate

to landowners the positive effects of tree revetments on eroding streambanks. The project calls

for 15 tree revetment sites, plus additional best

management practices, to be installed on selected

streams throughout the Broad River watershed.

A tree revetment is a bioengineering method

that uses whole trees cabled tightly together in

giant bundles. These bundles are then secured to

the eroded streambank in a shingling effect, just

like the shingles on a roof, through an anchoring

system of cables. The trees used in the installation

are selected by the contractor with assistance from

an Natural Resources Conservation Service specialist or by the participating landowner from the

landowner’s own property. The streambank height

should usually be 6 feet or more, with a steep

incline; revetments can’t be constructed on gradually sloped streambanks.

Tree revetments have been shown to greatly

slow the stream current along an eroding bank,

decreasing erosion and allowing sediment to be

deposited in the tree branches of the revetment.

The deposited sediment forms an excellent seedwww.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/
41

North Griffin Storm Water Detention Pond Project:

Constructed Wetland System Protects Water, Wins Award

Griffin, Georgia

GEORGIA

Contact:

Brant Keller

Public Works Director

Storm Water Utility Division

P.O. Box T

Griffin, GA 30224

770-229-6603

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban storm water runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• metals

• oil

• grease

Project Activities:

• constructed wetland

system

Results:

• reduction of storm water

constituents

An important function of wetlands is their role in

maintaining and enhancing water quality. Urban

storm water contains a variety of constituents,

such as nitrogen, phosphorus, metals, oil, and

grease, that can contribute to nonpoint source

pollution. Because many complex chemical and

biological processes that affect water quality occur

in wetlands, a vegetated wetland system can incorporate and transform many of these storm water

constituents through biological breakdown by

microorganisms or vegetative decomposition.

In addition to providing water quality-enhancing

attributes, constructed wetland systems offer

other potential advantages, including comparatively simple operation with low maintenance,

process stability under varying environmental

conditions, and low construction and operating

costs when compared with traditional water treatment facilities. Additionally, the introduction of

emergent wetland species not only provides several benefits for water quality enhancement but

also results in improvement of wildlife habitats.

Comprehensive watershed management

In 1997 the City of Griffin began a comprehensive watershed management program by implementing a Storm Water Utility to address the city’s

aging infrastructure and improve the quality of

storm water runoff. One of the first projects

successfully completed under the management

program was construction of the North Griffin

Regional Detention Pond (NGRDP). This regional pond was designed for flood control and to

enhance and preserve water quality in Shoal Creek

and Wildcat Creek of the Flint River Basin.

The NGRDP features a drainage channel, a

regional detention pond, and two constructed

wetland areas for storm water filtration. The pond

and wetland areas use natural filtration and other

biological processes, rather than traditional mechanical means, to improve the quality of storm

water runoff. The pond serves as a comprehensive

storm water management system that eliminates

flooding problems in a 180-acre area of North

Griffin while enhancing water quality.

Georgia

www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/

bed in which the seeds of riparian trees such as

sycamores and maple, as well as other plants, can

sprout and grow. The resulting growth spreads

roots throughout the revetment and into the existing streambank. In addition to slowing streambank

erosion, tree revetments also provide excellent

habitat for birds, fish, and other forms of wildlife.

Continuing efforts

As of August 2001, seven revetment demonstration sites had been installed throughout the watershed. An additional five sites will be installed

through the end of 2001, as weather permits. The

progress of these sites will be monitored over the

next 2 years.
42 Guam

Evaluating the performance of the NGRDP

To determine the overall performance of the

wetland system, an evaluation of water quality was

performed by collecting and laboratory testing

storm water samples from locations upstream of,

within, and downstream of the detention pond. A

baseline sampling protocol was developed to

establish the initial quality of storm water runoff

from the North Griffin Drainage Basin.

Review of the monitoring data for the first 21

months (between January 1999 and September

2000) indicates that the actual removal efficiencies

are showing significant reductions for the constituents listed (see table). The City of Griffin anticipates that the future monitoring results for the

mature site will be comparable to the theoretical

removal efficiencies documented. Wetland maturation should result in utilization and transformation

of these constituents through biological breakdown

by microorganisms and vegetative decomposition.

The American Consulting Engineers Council

awarded the City of Griffin and Integrated Science & Engineering the 2000 Engineering Excellence Award for this project.

Monitored Removal Efficiencies

This table shows the removal efficiencies for several constituents that are currently being monitored. The table represents data

collected between January 1999 and September 2000 by the City of Griffin, Georgia.

Constituent Station 1 Station 3 Average removal Theoretical removal

(influent) (effluent) efficency efficiency

Total suspended solids 42.86 mg/L 36.71 mg/L 14% 65% to 80%

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen 4.53 mg/L 1.76 mg/L 61% 60% to 80%

Total phosphorus 0.17 mg/L 0.10 mg/L 41% 25% to 50%

Chemical oxygen demand 52.00 mg/L 31.86 mg/L 39% 35%

Total lead BDL BDL 0% 50%

Total zinc 0.13 mg/L 0.07 mg/L 46% 60% to 70%

Fecal coliform bacteria 25,457 no/100 mL 8,169 no/100 mL 68% NCLI

Note: BDL – below detection limits; NCLI – no comparison level identified.

Ugum Watershed Project:

Students Plant Acacia Seedlings to Help Restore Watershed

Ugum Watershed, Guam

GUAM

Contact:

Denny Cruz

Water Planning Committee

Guam EPA

671-475-1665

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• soil erosion

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• planting native acacia trees

Results:

• 50,000 acacia tree

seedlings planted in a

50-acre area

• projected to reduce

turbidity and improve

drinking water supply

The Ugum watershed is one of Guam’s last relatively pristine natural areas. It has been identified as

one of Guam’s highest-priority watersheds in the

island’s Unified Watershed Assessment. The watershed consists of 19 square kilometers of lush

vegetation, productive wetlands, savanna grasslands,

and badlands with numerous springs and feeder

streams. Located in the southern part of Guam, it

is home to wild pigs, deer, and carabao, as well as

many birds, some of which are endangered.

www.gepa.gov.gu/programs/water/poll.html
43

The Ugum Water Treatment Plant on the

Ugum River supplies drinking water to southeastern island villages. Soil erosion and increased

turbidity levels in the Ugum River have been

adversely affecting water quality and drinking

water supplies.

Acacia tree planting

In 1999 Guam’s Water Planning Committee

(WPC), composed of a broad spectrum of government agencies and other stakeholders (including Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry; Aquatic and Wildlife Resources; Department of Commerce; Guam Environmental Protection Agency; Natural Resources Conservation

Service; University of Guam; Guam Waterworks

Authority; Department of Defense; and Bureau

of Planning), initiated the watershed action plan

for one of its highest-priority watersheds. The

WPC determined that the most effective means

of preventing and minimizing soil erosion was to

encourage actions that maximize vegetative cover,

particularly forest.

To achieve this, section 319 funding was used

to plant a 50-acre area within the Ugum watershed

with some 50,000 trees. One hundred students

from Guam’s southern schools helped plant the

seedlings. The WPC goals were to conserve and

protect the ravine forest, revegetate badlands

within the savanna grasslands, minimize fires,

increase public involvement and education, and

obtain special recognition and standing that support the Ugum watershed as a priority watershed.

Reforestation of Ugum watershed

Once established, the acacia trees will allow the

opportunity for native trees to restore the area to

its native state. This is the beginning of a longterm program of forestation of the watershed.

Another sign of success is the WPC’s development of a Watershed Executive Order, which

the Governor signed in August 1999. The Executive Order affirms the WPC’s work on watersheds,

gives direction for agency leaders, and emphasizes

a watershed protection approach involving multiple ownership and use perspectives.

He’eia Coastal Restoration Project:

Thousands of Volunteers Replace Alien Plants with Native Species

 Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii

HAWAII

Contact:

Carole McLean

Executive Director

Friends of He’eia State Park

808-247-3156

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• erosion from alien coastal

plants

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• removal of alien plants

• planting of native species

Results:

• projected decrease in

sediments and nutrients

Friends of He’eia State Park is a nonprofit educational institution that offers interpretive programs

in the sciences and Hawaiian culture. The park sits

on an elevated peninsula on the shores of

Kaneohe Bay. Bordering the park are a unique

fringing reef, a mountain stream, and an ancient

Hawaiian fishpond. This project was part of a

larger master planning effort to rehabilitate portions of the entire He’eia watershed.

The state’s Department of Health has designated Kaneohe Bay a Water Quality Limited

Segment because of the nonpoint source pollution, specifically sediments and nutrients.

Kaneohe Bay and He’eia Stream are part of

www.state.hi.us/dbedt/czm/6217.html

Hawaii
44 Hawaii

Koolaupoko watershed, designated a priority

watershed in need of restoration by Hawaii’s

Unified Watershed Assessment Plan. Alien coastal

plants were causing problems by preventing adequate filtering of waters that emanate from the

watershed above before they entered the bay.

Replacing alien plants with native species

The major goal of this project was to expand and

enhance the He’eia Stream and coastal area by replacing existing alien coastal plants with native strand

species. The area was surveyed, and plans were

developed for the removal of the alien plants. Two

40-square-foot test plots were identified to be

cleared and planted with native species. Some of the

trees removed were 60 feet tall with 16-inch diameters. The trees were cut at the top of the prop roots

so the remaining roots could serve as traps or filters.

The project was very successful in removing

alien flora from the streambanks and in planting

native species such as milo, naupaka, kukui, kou

and puhala in their place. The native species are

expected to provide continuous protection to

Kaneohe Bay by filtering the waters that come

from the watershed above. Thousands of people

from community groups, schools, service clubs,

businesses, and prison work teams provided labor

for the project.

Benefits to waters and the community

Students and professors from Windward Community College monitored the water quality of He’eia

Stream at five sites in the watershed. The community benefited from this project through the many

formal presentations made to the public and from

the Hawaiian Lecture Series, which focused on the

cultural relationship of the land to the sea. The

success of this project has given Friends of He’eia

State Park a huge boost in their continuing efforts

throughout the watershed.

The total cost of this project was $155,000;

funding included $60,000 in 319 grant funds.

Integration of Aquaculture with Taro Production:

Nonpoint Source Pollutants Reduced in Demonstration Project

Niumalu, Hawaii

HAWAII

Contact:

Don Heacock

Department of Land and

Natural Resources

3060 Elwa Street

Lihue, HI 96766

808-241-3400

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• aquaculture

• taro production

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• dissolved chemical

fertilizers

• high-nutrient-content

aquaculture effluents

• sediment

• total dissolved solids

• pesticides

Project Activities:

• integration of aquaculture

with taro production

Results:

• reduced levels of

ammonia, nitrate,

phosphate, and BOD

Both aquaculture and taro production play important roles in the Hawaiian culture but can sometimes result in significant nonpoint source pollution. Puali Stream and Nawiliwili Bay have been

particularly affected by agricultural discharges of

dissolved chemical fertilizers, high-nutrient-content aquaculture effluents, sediment, total dissolved solids, and pesticides.

Hawaii initiated a 319 project to demonstrate

that the integration of aquaculture with taro

production systems can significantly reduce

nonpoint source water pollution. The goal of the

project was to demonstrate that the application of

various best management practices (BMPs) to

integrated aquaculture (fish)–agriculture (taro)

production systems can result in significant ecowww.state.hi.us/dbedt/czm/6217.html
45

logical and economic advantages, including, ultimately, the reduction of nonpoint source pollution. Equally important was the goal that the

project result in the improvement of the social

and economic conditions of taro growers and

aquaculturists throughout the state.

New approaches to production

The project involved stocking four pairs of fish

tanks with both tilapia and Chinese catfish. Each

taro treatment then received the effluent from two

fish tanks. Each pair of tanks that discharged into

each loi (pondfield) was integrated with four treatment taro pondfields planted with lehua maoli,

which then drained into adjacent fields planted with

bun long. Two taro controls were integrated with,

and discharged into, a wastewater polyculture pond.

One was solarized and one was not. The

polyculture pond was stocked with fish, taro, and

aquatic plants, dependent on waste products from

the two controls for their nutritional needs. The

system was expected to control eutrophication,

recycle organic and inorganic wastes, decrease soil

erosion, and abate water pollution.

Quantitative water quality data were collected

bimonthly with the use of a Hydrolab and other

water quality testing equipment to monitor the

following parameters: dissolved oxygen, percent

saturation, pH, conductivity, temperature, turbidity, total dissolved solids, total nitrate, total phosphate, total ammonia, and biological oxygen demand (BOD). The purpose of the monitoring was

to assess which BMPs and integrated methods are

most effective as pollution abatement techniques.

Increased water quality without affecting crop

yields

This project was successful in demonstrating that

the traditional Hawaiian cultural practice of taro

production can efficiently meet today’s standards

of water quality without affecting taro yield. Although the growth rate of the tilapia and Chinese

catfish were considered relatively slow, it must be

considered that two crops (fish and taro) are being

grown and the goal is to optimize the production

of both while at the same time protecting the

quality of receiving waters. The taro functioned

well as a “biofilter” to recover nutrients in aquaculture effluent. Overall levels of ammonia, nitrate,

phosphate, and BOD were significantly reduced

after the aquaculture effluent flowed through the

taro loi.

Conservation in Hatwai Creek:

Partners Work Together on Four Successful Projects

Nez Perce County, Idaho

IDAHO

Contact:

Lynn Rasmussen

NRCS District

Conservationist

208-746-9886

Lynn.Rasmussen@id.usda.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• nonirrigated cropland

(headwater sites)

• rangeland (grazing

activities)

• surface mining operations

• streambank erosion

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

• high water temperature

Project Activities:

• landowner education

• streambank stabilization

structures

Results:

• 20 tons per acre per year

reduced erosion from erosion

control structures

• 7 tons per acre per year

reduction from sheet and rill

erosion control practices

• 20 percent reduction in use

of pesticides and fertilizers

• increased trout density

Hatwai Creek is 3 miles east of Lewiston, Idaho.

Its watershed consists of 19,785 acres of cropland (56 percent), rangeland (31.5 percent),

pasture/hayland (5 percent), riparian areas

(2.5 percent), roads (2 percent), forestland

(1 percent), mining (1 percent), and farms and

www2.state.id.us/deq/water/nps/nps.htm

Idaho
46 Idaho

suburban areas (1 percent). The watershed elevation ranges from 775 feet to 2,964 feet. Annual

precipitation ranges from 10 inches at lower

elevations to 22 inches at higher elevations.

The watershed was listed on Idaho’s 303(d)

list and also listed as critical habitat for steelhead

salmon. The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) listed steelhead as threatened in Hatwai

Creek. The creek’s beneficial uses are agriculture

water supply, secondary contact recreation, and

salmonid spawning. The nonpoint source pollutants include sediment, nutrients, and high water

temperature. The primary sources of such pollutants are nonirrigated cropland (headwater sites),

rangeland (grazing activities), surface mining

operations, and streambank erosion.

Combined resources to address watershed

In the early 1990s the Nez Perce Soil and Water

Conservation District (NPSWCD) organized

local, state, and federal stakeholders to address

water quality and fishery concerns. The watershed

plan resulting from that partnership consisted of

four separate projects to address water quality and

fisheries issues: an EPA 319 project, a U.S. Department of Agriculture Water Quality Incentives

Project, a riparian demonstration project funded

by the Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, and

a USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program project.

The Idaho Department of Environmental

Quality (DEQ) funded a sediment and nutrient

reduction project through section 319 funding. The

project included landowner education for watershed management and nonpoint source pollution.

Many structural conservation practices were installed, including 12 water and sediment control

basins, nine grade stabilization structures, two

ponds, one off-site water development, eight sediment basins, 8,000 linear feet of terrace, and 5,400

linear feet of riparian improvement practices

(brush mattresses, pole plantings, and revetments).

The USDA Water Quality Incentive Program

project provided incentive payments for nutrient

and pest management and for well testing. Thirtyfive landowners participated and received training

on soil testing, nutrient budgets, Integrated Pest

Management practices, and wellhead protection

practices. More than 11,000 acres were treated

through this program.

The riparian demonstration project began in

1993 and will be completed in 2001. The primary

areas of focus are grazing management on riparian

and upland areas, enhancement of the riparian

areas, streambank stabilization, and fish habitat

improvement.

In June 1999 a special project for reducing

sheet and rill erosion on cropland was initiated

through the support of the Natural Resources

Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Environmental

Quality Incentives Program. Conservation practices will focus on the implementation of direct

seeding systems, a new technology for this area,

and there is a possibility of reducing sheet and rill

erosion by as much as 25 percent.

Success of cooperative efforts

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game collected fish data in Lower Hatwai Creek, monitoring the responses of wild trout, natural rainbow

trout, and steelhead trout. Monitoring results for

the 1995 to 1998 period indicate that the trout

density increased annually throughout the length

of the demonstration project. Trout density in the

project area increased from 0.32 per 100 square

meters in 1995 to a high of 13.24/100 m2

 in 1998;

in the control area, on the other hand, trout density was only 0.87/100 m2

 in 1996, 3.00/100 m2 in

1997, and 3.06/100 m2 in 1998. This improvement is attributed to improved riparian health,
47

including improved streambank, increased canopy

cover, and decreased stream temperatures.

Nineteen erosion control structures were

installed, reducing concentrated-flow erosion of

sediment by an average of 20 tons per acre per

year. Installing sheet and rill erosion control practices on 10,000 acres of nonirrigated cropland

resulted in a reduction of 7 tons per acre per year.

Installing 9,000 acres of pest and nutrient management practices produced a 20 percent reduction in

the amount of pesticides and fertilizers applied.

The NPSWCD also completed a landowner

survey to document technology adoption. Eightyfive percent of those surveyed had participated in

at least one of the four projects, and 69 percent

confirmed that they would participate again in a

Paradise Creek originates on Moscow Mountain

(elev. 4,356 feet) and then flows in a southwesterly

direction for 20 miles, through Moscow, Idaho

(elev. 2,520 feet), ultimately entering the South

Fork of the Palouse River in Pullman, Washington. The creek drains 34 square miles and consists

of 55 stream segments, 49 of which flow through

agricultural fields. Wetlands associated with riparian areas along Paradise Creek are in poor condition because of past and present management

activities such as draining and tiling.

Restoring the Paradise Creek Watershed:

Phased Approach Implemented to Address Pollution and Flooding

Moscow and Pullman, Idaho

IDAHO

Contact:

David Urban

Palouse-Clearwater

Environmental Institute

208-882-1444

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

• urban wastewater

• channelization

• streambank erosion

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

• high temperatures

• pathogens

• ammonia

Project Activities:

• remeander channel

segments

• restore floodplains

• revegetate riparian areas

• stabilize streambanks

• construct wetlands

• conduct community

education

Results:

• projected decreases in

sediment, nutrients, high

temperatures

• projected 1.5-foot drop in

flood elevations

Today, Paradise Creek is a simplified ecosystem adversely affected by habitat destruction,

excessive sediment, nutrients, high temperatures,

altered flow, pathogens, and ammonia, which in

combination have significantly decreased its biological integrity. Cropland is the most prevalent

land use (about 73 percent) in the Paradise Creek

watershed but provides the least diverse plant

community type. Historically, Paradise Creek supported cold water fisheries; currently, the creek

supports only limited nongame fish species. Bewww2.state.id.us/deq/water/nps/nps.htm

Idaho

similar project if given the opportunity. Fifty-four

percent of those surveyed were willing to participate in watershed advisory groups. Nineteen different types of conservation practices were installed

on more than 14,000 acres of land, representing

about three-fourths of the total watershed acreage.

Success is the result of the cooperative efforts

of landowners, the public, and various agencies.

Groups assisting included DEQ, EPA, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, Nez Perce County Commissioners, Lewiston Senior High School, Lewiston Retired

Senior Volunteer Program, Idaho Department of

Lands, Idaho Department of Water Resources,

NRCS, University of Idaho, local Boy Scout

groups, NMFS, and the NPSWCD.
48 Idaho

cause negative impacts on the stream continue to

increase along with growth in the urban areas of

Moscow and Pullman, it is becoming even more

difficult for the creek to repair itself.

A multiphase approach

For the past decade, the Palouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute (PCEI), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, has directed watershed restoration projects in

Paradise Creek. From 1994 to the present, PCEI has

led a seven-phase comprehensive watershed restoration approach in the Paradise Creek watershed. In

addition to 319 funding, support for this project was

provided by a multitude of partners, including Moscow School District No. 281; numerous private individuals and businesses; City of Moscow; Latah Soil

and Water Conservation District; University of Idaho;

Palouse Conservation District in Whitman County,

Washington; City of Pullman, Washington; Idaho

Department of Fish and Game; Idaho Department

of Water Resources; Idaho Department of Lands,

Soil Conservation Commission; U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers; U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural

Resources Conservation Service; and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service.

Phase 1 of the project began in fall 1995, and

the project continues today with restoration efforts

in Phase 7. Most of the activities have involved

floodplain and wetland restoration, streambank

stabilization and revegetation, and relocation of the

previously straightened stream channel to its natural pattern in the Paradise Creek watershed. These

efforts have involved the cooperation and participation of both public and private landowners along

the Paradise Creek corridor, dealing with various

contributors of nonpoint source pollution.

 In 1995 Phase 1 began with the restoration of a

floodplain and streambanks at a site owned by the

Moscow School District. Before the restoration

project, this section of Paradise Creek was

channelized with unstable banks. The riparian zone

was farmed, and plant diversity along the stream

channel was low. Phase 1 involved efforts to

remeander 1,200 feet of stream channel, as well as

streambank stabilization practices, including the planting of more than 750 native plants on some 3,000

square feet of streambank and 5 acres of floodplain.

Also in 1995, the commencement of Phase 2

involved the development of wastewater treatment wetlands with the help of local community

volunteers and students, who planted the newly

constructed cells with 23,860 native herbaceous

wetland plants. The wetlands were completed in

1998, and PCEI has given tours of the site to

classes from universities and to local groups like

the Native Plant Society.

In 1996 Phase 3 projects were aimed at floodplain restoration, streambank stabilization, and the

remeandering of a 1,250-foot segment of the creek

owned by the University of Idaho that had previously been channelized. The creek’s path had been

tamed, but it had little value for flood control,

aesthetics, or wildlife. The floodplain was therefore

revegetated with a native riparian plant community,

and a sinuous, low-flow channel with bioengineered

bank stabilization and habitat structures was constructed. In addition, biofilters, including grassy

swales and “pocket” wetlands, were installed to

treat storm water runoff from a planned parking

lot. Models of the completed project showed a

drop in flood elevations of up to 1.5 feet.

The Phase 4 projects, begun in 1999, focused

on streambank and floodplain restoration in private backyards along Paradise Creek. Need for

this project was high, as demonstrated by one

landowner’s loss of a 60-square-foot strip of her

backyard to streambank erosion. Interested landowners provided buffer strips. The widths of their

strips varied based on the erosion potential of

their reach of Paradise Creek.
49

Restoring riparian areas on agricultural land

along Paradise Creek was the goal for Phase 5.

Before restoration, the stream channel had been

straightened and acted as a drainage ditch for

active agricultural land directly adjacent to the

stream. As part of the restoration project, 3,600

feet of stream channel was relocated to follow its

estimated historical path. Vulnerable banks were

stabilized, and two new wetlands were excavated

to act as a flood storage and groundwater recharge area and to provide habitat for wildlife. In

spring 2000 PCEI and the landowner planted a

150-foot-wide buffer strip with a mix of native

woody plant species.

Streambank Stabilization in the Thomas Fork Watershed:

Photo Monitoring Sells Landowners on Bank Stabilization

Thomas Fork Watershed, Idaho

IDAHO

Contact:

Craig Thomas

Bear Lake Regional

Commission

208-945-2333

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

• stream channelization

• streambank modifications

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• streambank stabilization

• fencing

Results:

• decreased

sedimentation—more

than 200,000 cubic feet

of sediment retained on

streambank

The Thomas Fork watershed covers 150,100 acres,

with 39 percent in Bear Lake County, Idaho, and 61

percent in Lincoln County, Wyoming. The watershed

is near where the states of Idaho, Wyoming, and

Utah meet and is a subwatershed of the Bear River

Basin. Because of the latitude and elevation of the

watershed, the area typically has short, cool summers

and long, cold winters. The watershed receives about

50 percent of its annual precipitation during the

winter months. Most of this precipitation falls as

snow and is stored in the snowpack at higher elevations for spring and summer runoff.

Thomas Fork is a tributary to the Bear River

and is upstream from the point where the Bear River

is diverted into Bear Lake. Bear Lake, which is half

in Idaho and half in Utah, is a unique body of water

with about 110 square miles of surface area. It contains five endemic fish species. In Idaho the lake has

been designated a Special Resource Water.

The designated uses of Thomas Fork are

cold water biota and salmonid spawning. The

stream is listed among Idaho’s 303(d) “water

quality limited stream segments.” The pollutants

the state has identified as contributing to the

watershed’s water quality problems are sediment,

nutrients, and habitat alteration. The primary

nonpoint sources of pollutants to surface water

are cropland and rangeland, animal feeding areas,

riparian areas, stream channelization, and

streambank modification.

www2.state.id.us/deq/water/nps/nps.htm

Idaho

Phase 6 involved the urbanized riparian

floodplain and associated wetlands on public land

along Paradise Creek within Moscow. Work took

place along two reaches of the creek, resulting in

the revegetation of more than 4,000 feet of

stream by fall 2000.

Phase 7 of the project is under way, focusing

on the implementation of nonpoint source controls

to achieve Total Maximum Daily Load allocations.

The project includes construction of animal waste

biofiltration swales and treatment wetlands, revegetation of riparian areas, streambank stabilization,

and agricultural land restoration activities in association with other local agencies.
50 Illinois

 Streambank stabilization

The Bear Lake Regional Commission, a bistate

organization, worked in partnership with the Bear

Lake Soil and Water Conservation District, U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources

Conservation Service, and local landowners to

reduce the pollutant loading to Bear Lake that

comes from the Bear River and Thomas Fork. The

Soil Conservation District developed a watershed

management plan, funded through an Idaho state

agricultural water quality project.

The plan identified 12 critical areas needing

treatment. Remediation activities for the first area

selected focused on riparian and streambank

problems and encompassed 100,842 linear feet.

This area was further refined to a 20,000-foot

segment of high streambank erosion in the Idaho

portion of the Thomas Fork watershed.

The Bear Lake Regional Commission received 319 funding to install a series of best

management practices, in partnership with area

landowners. The types of practices employed

included rock stream barbs, bank shaping and

reseeding, tree revetment, rock riprap, channel

armoring, fencing, and animal water gaps. The

project was successful in treating 4,767 linear

feet of streambank, installing 41 rock stream

barbs, and installing 2,000 linear feet of permanent fencing.

Decreased sedimentation

The stabilization work resulted in a marked decrease in the amount of sediment entering Thomas Fork. Three types of monitoring techniques

were used to measure the results of the stabilization work: photo points, water chemistry, and

surveyed stream transects. The stream transects

have revealed that for each foot of treated streambank as compared to an untreated site, 50 cubic

feet of streambank material was retained on the

banks over a 3-year period. This quantity of retained material per foot, when expanded to the

entire treated area, amounts to more than 200,000

cubic feet of material retained.

Photo monitoring helped demonstrate the

rewards of bank stabilization work to other landowners. As a result, another 4,000 linear feet of

streambank is scheduled for remediation in 2001.

Lake Pittsfield was constructed in 1961 to serve as

a flood control structure and as a public water

supply for the city of Pittsfield. Pittsfield is a

western Illinois community of some 4,500 people.

Lake Pittsfield Project:

Ninety Percent Reduction in Sediment Loading Achieved

Pittsfield, Illinois

ILLINOIS

Contact:

Scott Tomkins

Illinois EPA

Bureau of Water

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

217-782-3362

scott.tomkins@epa.state.il.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (farming

operations)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• sediment-reducing practices

(installation of water and

sediment control basins,

conservation tillage,

integrated crop

management, livestock

exclusion, filter strips,

terraces, wildlife habitat

management)

Results:

• 90 percent reduction in

sediment loading

The Blue Creek watershed, a 7,000-acre watershed

draining into Lake Pittsfield, is predominantly

agricultural, consisting primarily of rotational

corn and soybean cropland.

www.epa.state.il.us/water/watershed/nonpoint_source.html
51

Sedimentation was a major water quality

problem affecting Lake Pittsfield. Sediment from

farming operations, gullies, and shoreline erosion

had decreased the capacity of the lake by 25

percent over the past 33 years.

Project design

Based on a thorough analysis of lake problems and

pollution control needs conducted under the Clean

Lakes Program, project coordinators developed a

strategy to reduce sediment transport into Lake

Pittsfield. The keystone of the land management

strategy was the construction of 29 water and

sediment control basins (WASCOBs) throughout

the watershed, including a large basin at the upper

end of the lake. Funds from the U.S. Department

of Agriculture’s Environmental Quality Incentive

Project, Illinois’s Conservation Practices Program,

and the Illinois EPA 319 Program supported installation of additional sediment-reducing practices

such as conservation tillage, integrated crop management, livestock exclusion, filter strips, terraces,

WASCOBs, and wildlife habitat management.

Land-based data and a geographic information

system (GIS) were used to develop watershed maps

of sediment sources and sediment yields.

Monitoring conducted

In 1994 the project was approved for the section

319 National Monitoring Program. Money has

been approved until 2004, allowing monitoring to

continue for 9 years past installation of the sediment retention basins.

The objective of the Lake Pittsfield section

319 project was to evaluate the effectiveness of

WASCOBs in reducing sediment delivery into the

lake. Water quality monitoring consisted of tributary sampling after rainstorms to determine sediment loads, pre- and post-project lake water quality sampling (104 Clean Lakes Phase I and II

Assessments) at three lake sites to determine

trends in water quality, and lake sedimentation rate

monitoring to determine changes in sediment

deposition rates and patterns.

Key successes and lessons learned

A 90 percent reduction in sediment loading to

Lake Pittsfield was achieved through the installation of water and sediment control basins. The

large sediment basin covering 147 acre-feet upstream of the lake was more effective, in general,

than the smaller basins upstream. The effectiveness of the 29 smaller upland basins was dependent on watershed geology and basin position.

Stream stabilization of Blue Creek was an

important component of the overall program to

reduce sediment loading to Lake Pittsfield. Installing low stone weirs prevented further channel

incision and mass wasting of streambanks.

Strong local partnerships, along with interagency corporation, were key to achieving the

desired success of this project.

Illinois
52

Restoration of the Flint Creek Watershed:

Restoration Partnership Completes Multiple Projects

Lake and Cook Counties, Illinois

ILLINOIS

Contact:

Scott Ristau

Illinois EPA

Bureau of Water

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

217-782-3362

scott.ristau@epa.state.il.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• land development

• channelization

• urban runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• detention basin retrofit

• wetland swale

• sand filters

• shoreline and streambank

stabilization

• stream corridor restoration

• native plant installation

Results:

• no impairments due to

NPS pollution on 2000

Illinois Water Quality

Report

The Flint Creek watershed covers approximately

28 square miles of Lake and Cook Counties in

northeastern Illinois. The watershed includes

several high-quality wetlands and lakes, as well as

Flint Creek. The creek was listed in the Illinois

Water Quality Report (1994–1995) as being impaired, in part, due to nonpoint source pollution

from land development, channelization, and urban

runoff. Problems in the watershed included shoreline erosion, streambank erosion, and debris

blocking areas of the stream.

In spring 1996 the first of many projects

using section 319 funding began in the Flint

Creek watershed. The approach of the restoration partnership was to implement several

projects to make a difference in the quality of

water and aquatic habitats in the watershed. The

planners also wanted to involve the community

through information and education. The restoration partnership consisted of the Northeastern

Illinois Planning Commission, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Village of Barrington, Village

of Lake Zurich, Lake County Forest Preserve

District, Good Shepherd Hospital, Natural Areas

Ecosystem Management, Applied Ecological

Services, and Citizens for Conservation, a local

citizens group.

Urban runoff BMPs

The project involved retrofitting outdated practices and installing new practices to deal with

urban runoff. One component involved retrofitting an outdated basin that was no longer effective

at handling runoff. Different pools of water were

created for settling, as well as a shallow marsh for

filtering. An installed walkway created an opportunity for a nearby elementary school to use the

basin as a “living classroom,” with a place to view

aquatic plant and animal life.

A wetland swale was created to remove pollutants and reduce the flow rate of runoff coming

from an auto repair shop, landscape nursery, office

buildings, and roads. The swale was constructed in a

long, linear shape with a forebay where heavier solids

would be captured. Sand filters, which were effective

in achieving pollution control, were constructed

using PVC piping and standard manhole structures

connecting the settling chamber and sand filter.

In addition, 250 feet of shoreline and 5,600

feet of streambank were stabilized using a combination of bioengineering techniques such as Ajacks, lunker structures, coir fiber rolls, brush

layering, willow staking, and native plant installation. Lunker structures, made of real or recycled

plastic lumber, were used to form artificial undercut banks. These structures stabilized the toe of

Illinois

www.epa.state.il.us/water/watershed/nonpoint_source.html
53

The Blue River originates in Washington County,

Indiana, and flows south to form the natural

boundary between Crawford County, Indiana, and

Harrison County, Indiana, continuing south to the

Ohio River. The Blue River has been designated a

State Natural and Scenic River and is a favorite

recreation site in Indiana. The river is home to

many globally rare fish and mussels. The southern

fork of the Blue River flows through the Harrison

Blue River Riparian Reforestation:

The Nature Conservancy Gets Landowners Involved

Washington, Crawford, and Harrison Counties, Indiana

Crawford State Forest, and the river also flows

near Wyandotte Caves. Much of the northern part

of the river was located in a primarily agricultural

area, which was cleared of riparian forest to make

way for row crops and livestock access. The problems that resulted include reduced bank stabilization and lack of filtration of nutrients. The lack

of shading and higher turbidity have also caused

the temperature of the water to rise.

INDIANA

Contact:

Amy Reeves

100 North Senate Avenue

P.O. Box 6015

Indianapolis, IN 46206

317-232-6566

alreeves@dem.state.in.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• deforestation for row crops

• livestock access

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• sediment

• high water temperature

Project Activities:

• riparian reforestation

Results:

• planted nearly 300 acres

of riparian buffer

www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/wsm/watershed/NPSplan/NPSManagementPlan.pdf

Indiana

the streambank and were found to be effective at

creating a cover for aquatic habitat. A vegetative

zone was created by using A-jacks to stabilize the

shoreline and fiber rolls to reduce the effects of

wave action. Native plants were then installed in

the fiber roll and the newly created zone.

Many impediments to fish migration, including debris blockages and logjams, were removed.

Riffles were installed to dissipate stream energy

and improve aquatic habitat. Through prairie and

savanna restoration, native deep-rooted vegetative

communities were used to stabilize the soil and

enhance infiltration.

Nonnative woody vegetation had been growing along the banks of Flint Creek, allowing an

undercover that was not effective in stabilizing the

banks to grow. A combination of techniques,

including physical removal, herbicide treatment,

and burning, was used to remove the nonnative

vegetation. Native plants were installed, and some

subsequent reinstallation was necessary. These

efforts resulted in stable slopes, vegetated mostly

with native species.

The Flint Creek projects were completed at

the end of 1999 and will continue to be monitored and maintained. The goals of the restoration planners have been accomplished, and the

result is evident in the water quality of Flint

Creek. The Illinois Water Quality Report (2000)

now lists Flint Creek as having no impairments

due to nonpoint sources. Successful restoration

came about with the help of both municipalities,

as well as some landowners who continue the

projects in the watershed. The Flint Creek watershed restoration is an example of how completing

multiple projects and educating communities can

make a difference in the quality of a watershed

today and in the future.
54

Role of The Nature Conservancy

In 1997 the state of Indiana provided $34,865 of

section 319 dollars to The Nature Conservancy to

replant the riparian forest and to educate the

community on its purpose, progress, and results.

The Nature Conservancy brought a large group

together for the project, including landowners,

Friends of the Blue River, Harrison County

Cattlemen’s Association, U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Washington County Farm Bureau, Indiana University Southeast, University of Louisville,

and Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Division of Forestry. This group began in 1994 to

coordinate a comprehensive river conservation

approach.

The Nature Conservancy placed the project

in the hands of a coordinator, Allen Pursell, with

the goals of aiding landowners in riparian reforestation, teaching reforestation best management

practices, and publicizing its work. The group

advertised its intent to aid landowners in reforesting portions of their land through local papers, a

field day, and one-on-one contact with landowners. Personal contact proved to be the most successful method, and seven landowners agreed to

implement riparian reforestation.

By the end of the contract, The Nature Conservancy, with the help of the seven landowners

and a professional forester, had planted 72.1 acres

along the corridor of the Blue River with 56,000

trees. These acres translated to 3.1 miles of corridor reforestation. Tree species planted included bur

oak, shumar oak, black walnut, yellow-poplar,

swamp white oak, white ash, and black cherry. The

landowners agreed at the start of the contract to

enroll each area as a Classified Forest if it qualified

for the program; of the seven, five have qualified.

Sharing lessons learned

During the course of this first grant, The Nature

Conservancy learned the best ways to involve

landowners, to plant trees at a high density for best

results, and the importance of keeping weeds out

of seedling areas. They have shared this knowledge

with many other groups with interest in riparian

reforestation. They also shared their lessons learned

by sponsoring a field day on tree planting for government and private sector conservation practitioners. All attendees planned to begin a riparian tree

planting program in their areas.

Indiana has given The Nature Conservancy a

second 319 grant for Blue River riparian reforestation. Under this new grant, which started in August 1999, The Nature Conservancy has signed on

13 landowners. They have also planted 103 acres

of riparian buffers, representing 4.3 miles of

riparian zone. All planted lands have completed or

are going through the process of enrollment in

the Classified Forest or Classified Riparian Land

program, which allows landowners tax breaks and

periodic free inspections by a professional forester

on at least 10 acres of private land that has been

left or restored to forest. In Washington County,

4,000 feet of fencing was placed on a dairy farm

to exclude the livestock from the Blue River. The

riparian area just outside the fence was planted

with native hardwoods and is going through the

classification process. To date, a total of almost

300 acres of land has been planted.

Indiana
55

Throughout the Indian and Little Pine Creek watersheds, the concentrations of nitrates, phosphorus,

and total suspended solids in the stream water are

among the highest in the nation. The largest inputs

of chemicals to streams occur from March through

June, corresponding to spray irrigation of lagoon

water, agricultural cultivation, chemical application

to crop fields, and storm events. Because these

pollutants reach agricultural ditches via overland

flow and tile drain systems, best management

practices that can reduce pollutant levels without

significantly interrupting drainage of cropland or

converting cropland to other uses are needed.

Filtering pollutants

In 1999 the Department of Forestry and Natural

Resources at Purdue University used 319 funding

provided by Indiana to construct an experimental

wetland system to remove nonpoint source pollutants from agricultural ditches before the pollutants

reached the more natural parts of Little Pine Creek

and the Wabash River. Agricultural ditch water is

pumped through a series of wetlands to filter out

the pollutants and is then returned to the ditch.

Monitoring results

Although the effectiveness of this wetland system

in reducing nonpoint source pollution is still being

assessed, follow-up monitoring results are variable

but promising. Preliminary results show a reduction of more than 60 parts per million in nitrate

concentration in the water treated by the system

after an intense rain event. The reduction in nitrate concentration varies depending on spray

irrigation timing and rainfall. Monitoring the

success of this project in terms of the nonpoint

source pollution mitigation continues. Various

wildlife species, including reptiles and amphibians,

birds, and mammals, have colonized the wetlands,

showing their value as habitat.

This project has been successful in another

important way—increasing the awareness of the

public and the next generation of environmental

stewards about nonpoint source pollution. Since

its inception, the project has provided many opportunities for individuals and classes to get involved in designing and constructing the wetlands

and evaluating their effects on water quality, habitat, and wildlife.

Little Pine Creek and Indian Watersheds:

Constructed Wetland System Averts Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution

Tippecanoe County, Indiana

INDIANA

Contact:

Jody Arthur

Indiana Department of

Environmental Management

100 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

317-234-1424

jarthur@dem.state.in.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (spray irrigation

of lagoon water,

agricultural cultivation,

chemical application to

crop field, storm events)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nitrates

• phosphorus

• total suspended solids

Project Activities:

• constructed wetland system

Results:

• reduction of more than

60 ppm in nitrate

concentrations

• improved wildlife habitat

www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/wsm/watershed/NPSplan/NPSManagementPlan.pdf

Indiana
56

A nosepump was used to provide water to cattle

fenced from the fishable part of Bigalk Creek.

A naturally spawned rainbow trout from Bigalk

Creek. Iowa DNR fisheries biologists now consider

the creek Iowa’s most productive stream in terms of

natural rainbow trout reproduction.

Iowa

Bigalk Creek Watershed Project:

Rainbow Trout Population Rebounds

Howard County, Iowa

IOWA

Contacts:

Ubbo Agena

DNR Nonpoint Source

Coordinator

515-281-6402

Kevin Baskins

DNR Nonpoint Source

Information Specialist

515-281-8395

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

• cattle watering

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• cattle exclusion

• stream corridor

improvements

• sediment basins

• innovative farming

practices

Results:

• reduction of 12,285 tons of

soil delivery into Bigalk

Creek (projected future

reductions of 5,000 tons/

year)

• livestock manure reduced

by 50 percent

• rebound of rainbow trout

population, including

natural reproduction

Bigalk Creek in northeast Iowa historically has

been used for watering cattle. As a result,

streambanks along the creek were severely degraded, causing extremely high sediment delivery

from streambank erosion.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources

(using section 319 funds), the Iowa Department

of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, and the

Natural Resources Conservation Service

partnered in a 5-year effort (from 1995 to 1999)

to reduce erosion in the watershed, hoping to also

increase the rainbow trout concentration.

Cattle exclusion and BMPs to reduce soil

erosion

The first major step in the Bigalk Creek watershed

project involved fencing cattle off a primary

stretch of the stream where most of the trout

stocking takes place. Nose pumps were used to

provide water for the cattle while keeping them

away from the streambank. The project then

focused on a subwatershed of 3,140 acres closest

to the 1.2 miles of stockable stream and complete

restoration of the stream corridor by the Iowa

DNR, which included reshaping the streambank,

installing rock riprap, constructing fish hides, and

reseeding the bank.

Improvements to the stream corridor were

augmented by preventive measures in the watershed to reduce erosion. Practices used to achieve

sediment delivery reduction goals included grade

and stream stabilization, strip cropping, sediment

basins, no-till, grass waterways, and grass/legume

A stream corridor restoration and watershed improvement project reduced

nutrient and sediment delivery to Bigalk Creek.

www.state.ia.us/epd/wtrq/npsource/nonpt/nps_0900.htm
Iowa 57

The Lake Fisher Water Quality Project:

Chipped Tires Help Protect Public Water Supply

Bloomfield, Iowa

IOWA

Contacts:

Ubbo Agena

DNR Nonpoint Source

Coordinator

515-281-6402

Kevin Baskins

DNR Nonpoint Source

Information Specialist

515-281-8395

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

• failing septic systems

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• pesticides

• nutrients

• bacteria

Project Activities:

• agricultural BMPs

• sediment control basins,

ponds, and constructed

wetlands

• septic system upgrades

Results:

• sediment reduced by 60

percent

• nutrients, pesticides, and

organic materials reduced

by 50 percent

• bacteria reduced by 50

percent

When the 100-acre Lake Fisher reservoir was

constructed in 1936 as a Works Progress Administration (WPA) Project, it was to serve a

purely functional purpose as a water supply for

local residents. Today, that reservoir has the

capacity to hold 326 million gallons of water,

making Lake Fisher the primary source of

drinking water for the 3,100 residents in and

around the city of Bloomfield in southeast

Iowa. Over time, Lake Fisher has also become a

notable fishery and home to Iowa's state record

largemouth bass.

 Originally 12 to 15 feet deep, the southwest

leg of the lake is now only 3 to 5 feet deep because of soil erosion from the lake's watershed.

This portion of the lake has silted so extensively

that it can no longer handle drainage from the

land above it. During heavy precipitation, this

portion of the lake fills until water spills onto the

road, closing South Lake Fisher Drive. The water

draining from 1,380 acres of land in Lake Fisher’s

watershed deposits an estimated 2,100 tons of

sediment each year to the reservoir.

Treating the public water supply also is becoming more challenging because of the sedimentation of Lake Fisher. Often attached to the particles of dirt are pesticides and nutrients that can

degrade the quality of water in the lake. Water

quality is also hampered by the presence of bacteria from private sewage disposal systems that

simply don't work as well as intended because of

the soil characteristics of the watershed.

www.state.ia.us/epd/wtrq/npsource/nonpt/nps_0900.htm

rotation. These practices are targeted at protecting

the integrity of stream restoration work accomplished.

Rebounding trout population

The Bigalk Creek project demonstrated the feasibility of several new and innovative resource

management systems. Major accomplishments

include reducing sediment delivery to the creek by

50 percent, reducing the amount of livestock

manure reaching the stream by 50 percent, and

reducing the amount of sediment from

streambank erosion by 60 percent. Erosion was

reduced by 12,285 tons of soil in the Bigalk Creek

watershed during the project. It is estimated that

if current sediment control structures remain in

place, erosion will be reduced by more than 5,000

tons a year in the future.

The rainbow trout population has also made

a comeback. Bigalk Creek has now become only

the third stream in Iowa with documented natural

reproduction of rainbow trout.
58 Iowa

Tom Sperfslage, Lake Fisher Watershed

Project Coordinator, handles chipped tire

used to upgrade 19 private household

septic systems in the watershed.

Partnership for land

management

The Lake Fisher project is a

partnership that provides governmental funding and assistance to

local farmers, landowners, and

residents who want to improve

the quality of their drinking water

supply now and in the future.

Beginning in 1998, the 3-year

watershed protection project has

used funding from various sponsors (including 319 funding, the

Water Protection Fund administered by the Iowa Department of

Agriculture and Land Stewardship, and the City of

Bloomfield) to fund structural improvements on

properties designed to reduce the amount of sediment flowing into the lake.

Project activities include treating more than

900 acres of agricultural land with a combination

of terraces, water and sediment control basins,

ponds, and constructed wetlands. The project also

includes nutrient management, whole farm planning, manure management, bank stabilization, and

abandoned well plugging.

An innovative approach to upgrading private

septic systems was also used, resulting in 19 of the

22 failing systems (86 percent) in the watershed

being improved to meet the Iowa Administrative

Code. Although the original goal of the project

was to upgrade five systems during the life of the

project, this number was greatly increased because

of a grant of nearly $83,000 from the Waste

Management Division of the Iowa Department of

Natural Resources. Through this grant, chipped

tires were used as aggregate in the secondary

treatment portions of the new systems installed.

In all, more than 300 tons of chipped tires were

used as part of the project for septic systems.

Monthly samples are being collected over the next

2 years to measure the treatment efficiency of the

chipped tire medium.

Results of project activities

Preliminary results show that all three of the

project's original goals have been met. As a result

of implementing agricultural best management

practices, the sediment load reaching Lake Fisher

has been reduced by 60 percent. The amount of

nutrients, pesticides, and organic materials flowing into the lake has been reduced by 50 percent.

As a result of septic system improvements, the

amount of bacteria delivered to the lake has also

been reduced by 50 percent. Meeting these objectives will improve the quality of Lake Fisher for

the more than 3,100 people who rely on it for

drinking water.
59

Pine Creek Water Quality Project:

Life Expectancy of Pine Lakes Extended

Hardin County, Iowa

IOWA

Contacts:

Ubbo Agena

DNR Nonpoint Source

Coordinator

515-281-6402

Kevin Baskins

DNR Nonpoint Source

Information Specialist

515-281-8395

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• dredging

• soil conservation BMPs

Results:

• sediment delivery

reduced by 66 percent

• life expectancy of lake

extended by more than

100 years

By the early 1990s, the water in the Pine Lakes

might have been murky, but the eventual fate of

the two lakes was unmistakably clear. If nothing

was done, the Hardin County lakes created more

than a half century ago by impounding water

from Pine Creek would eventually choke to death

on the rich Iowa soil of the watershed. The degradation had even reached the point where it could

be quantified on the 75-acre Upper Pine Lake: in

1991 studies indicated that Upper Pine Lake

would be completely filled with sediment in less

than 45 years. Lower Pine Lake, Iowa’s first manmade, state-owned lake, had also lost nearly half

of its original volume.

Doing nothing was not an option. The Pine

Lakes and the surrounding 572-acre state park

draw some 500,000 visitors annually.

Combined efforts to reduce sediment delivery

From 1993 to1998, the Pine Creek Water Quality

Project, through the leadership of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), undertook

a monumental effort to reduce sediment in the

Pine Lakes. Through intensive dredging of the

Lower and Upper Pine Lakes, DNR set out to

increase the volume of the lakes and restructure

the bottom for better fishing habitat. In 1997 DNR

removed more than 179,000 cubic yards of sediment from the two lakes. Dredging increased the

average depth of 5 to 7 feet in Upper Pine Lake to

12 to 14 feet throughout a large portion of the lake.

Lower Pine Lake now has a depth of approximately 15 feet in its west end, compared to 8 to 10

feet before the dredging.

Dredging alone, however, would result in

treating only a symptom of the overall problem.

The effort to take accumulated sediment out of

the lakes would be worthwhile only if the amount

of soil coming in could be significantly reduced.

By implementing a variety of soil conservation

measures on their land, farmers in the watershed

have helped to reduce the amount of sediment

flowing into the Pine Lakes. Practices like streambank stabilization, terracing, no-till and contour

farming, and critical area seeding have all made a

positive difference in the watershed. Streambank stabilization was a key component used to reduce sediment

delivery at Pine Lakes.

www.state.ia.us/epd/wtrq/npsource/nonpt/nps_0900.htm

Iowa
60

KANSAS

Contact:

Nate Davis

Wichita State University

1845 North Fairmount

Wichita, KS 67260-0026

316-978-5841

nmdavis@wichita.edu

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• golf course maintenance

• urban storm water

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• pesticides

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• modified chemical

applications

• buffers

• rerouting drainage

patterns

Results:

• pesticides eliminated

• reductions in nitrates

(80%) and total

phosphorus (40-60%)

• improvements in

macroinvertebrates

Extended life

expectancy

Overall, the Pine

Creek Water Quality

Project has reduced

the amount of sediment coming into the

lake by more than

4,000 tons per year, a

66 percent reduction. Not only is the water

cleaner for swimming and fishing, but the watershed improvements and dredging have also extended the life expectancy of Upper Pine Lake

alone by more than 100 years.

A total of 180,000 cubic yards of sediment was

dredged from Pine Lakes as part of a comprehensive

project that targeted watershed protection and lake

renovation.

Improving the water quality at Braeburn Golf

Course began as part of a larger project looking at

urban runoff and its effects on nonpoint source

pollution. This 319-funded project was initiated

through an agreement between the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and Wichita

State University (WSU). The project commenced in

1997 with sampling of water quality conditions at

13 sites, including public parks, urban lawns and

streets, a row crop agricultural site, and two golf

courses, one of which was Braeburn. The objective

was to identify areas with contaminated runoff

coming from them and then implement best management practices (BMPs) to determine the BMPs’

effectiveness in reducing nonpoint source pollution.

A number of parameters commonly associated

Braeburn Golf Course Project:

Nitrates Reduced by More Than 80 Percent

Wichita, Kansas

with urban storm water, including pesticides and

nutrients, were the focus of monitoring.

Of all the sites tested, Braeburn Golf Course

showed the most significant contamination and

presented itself as an optimal site for BMP implementation. Excessive amounts of nutrients in the

High nutrient levels cause algae blooms, which

reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen available to

fish and other aquatic creatures.

Kansas

www.kdhe.state.ks.us/nps/index.html

The Pine Lakes are an excellent example of a

combined resource enhancement and protection

effort by the Iowa DNR. But the success of this

project would not have been possible without the

work and commitment of dedicated landowners

in the watershed. In addition to 319 support,

project sponsors included the Iowa Publicly

Owned Lakes Program, U.S. Department of

Agriculture Water Quality Incentive Program,

Iowa Financial Incentive Program, Emergency

Conservation Program, Section 314 Clean Lakes

Program, and local Friends of Pine Lake organization; Marine Fuel Tax funds were also used to

support the project.
61

form of nitrates and total phosphorus were found

in the ponds, prompting the growth of excessive

aquatic vegetation and algae blooms. The golf

course superintendent had reported fish kills in

the past, likely due to the biodegradation and

subsequent oxygen depletion caused by these

algae blooms. Periods of elevated pesticide contamination were evident, typically in the spring

and early summer during major application times,

and herbicides had caused violations of water

quality criteria during those times. In addition, the

algaecide copper sulfate was being used to control

algae blooms. Copper sulfate can have extremely

toxic effects on aquatic organisms, especially when

found in combination with various pesticides. An

assessment of macroinvertebrates revealed that

only a few tolerant organisms inhabited the ponds.

Alterations in golf course maintenance

Because of these circumstances, researchers at

WSU selected Braeburn as the site for BMP

implementation. In cooperation with golf course

superintendent Kent Trexler, various alterations to

golf course maintenance procedures were imposed. Chemical application procedures were

modified, using slow-release fertilizers and applying chemicals at a reduced rate. Thirty-foot buffer

zones in which no chemicals were applied were

established around the perimeters of the ponds

on the golf course, increasing grass density and

biomass to aid filtration of runoff. The use of

copper sulfate for algae control was discontinued;

instead, biological controls (grass carp), as well as

aquatic dye to act as a photoinhibitor to the algae,

were used. Rainwater drainage patterns also were

changed to route runoff into filtration areas, not

directly into the ponds as done previously.

Water quality improvements

Post-BMP water sampling, conducted for more

than a year in two ponds at Braeburn, revealed

that nitrates were reduced by more than 80 percent and total phosphorus values dropped by 40

percent and 60 percent in the two ponds. In addition, contamination from pesticides was all but

eliminated. An assessment of macroinvertebrates

showed an increase from 5 families collected

before BMP implementation to 16 families

sampled following BMPs, along with a shift from

tolerant organisms to those more sensitive to

water quality such as mayfly, butterfly, dragonfly,

and damselfly larvae. These improvements in

macroinvertebrate family richness provide biological evidence that BMPs are improving water quality conditions on the golf course.

Wetlands were created to catch runoff water and reduce the nutrients entering

the ponds.

A backhoe removed accumulated sediment from

the pond in an effort to improve aquatic habitat

and control future algae blooms.

Kansas
62

Many of the soils in Kansas present challenges to

the on-site disposal of domestic wastewater.

When site evaluations reveal shallow or heavy clay

soils, bedrock close to the surface, or other limiting conditions, alternatives to conventional septic

tank lateral fields are needed to provide adequate

treatment and disposal of the wastewater. Constructed wetlands are a relatively inexpensive

technology to achieve this. Although constructed

wetlands have been successfully used in other

states, the Kansas Department of Health and

Environment (KDHE), which is responsible for

the on-site wastewater program, funded the installation of some demonstration systems that were

monitored for 2 years to verify their effectiveness

in the midwestern climate.

In cooperation with the See-Kan Resource

Conservation and Development District, which

covers nine counties in southeastern Kansas, three

home sites with failing wastewater systems were

identified. The sites were characteristic of the

shallow, heavy clay soils that predominate in the

area, and the homeowners were willing to participate in the demonstration with the hope that the

On-site Sewage Disposal on Difficult Sites:

Special Conditions Demand Alternative Response

Southeastern Kansas

KANSAS

Contact:

Don Snethen

Kansas Department of

Health and Environment

Nonpoint Source Section

785-296-5567

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• failing on-site wastewater

treatment systems

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• fecal coliform bacteria

• total suspended solids

(TSS)

Project Activities:

• constructed wetlands

Results:

• decreased concentrations

of TSS, fecal coliform

bacteria, biochemical

oxygen demand,

ammonia, phosphorus

data would assist others having similar problems.

KDHE designed the constructed wetlands systems, which were installed in spring 1994. The

design and construction included easily accessible

sampling ports to monitor the quality of the

effluent at various locations throughout the treatment cell.

Evaluation of monthly sampling results,

conducted for 2 years by students from Pittsburg

State University, showed significant reductions in

all of the parameters analyzed. As a result of this

demonstration project, additional constructed

wetlands have been installed throughout the state.

Several hundred people, including sanitarians,

homeowners, conservation district personnel,

contractors, and other interested parties, have

attended tours of the sites to observe the systems

firsthand. Two manuals have been written: RockPlant Filter Design and Construction for Home Wastewater Systems and Rock-Plant Filter Operation, Maintenance, and Repair. Now in operation for 6 years, the

original demonstration projects are all thriving and

the homeowners are thrilled to have solved their

wastewater disposal problems.

Kansas

www.kdhe.state.ks.us/nps/index.html
63

KENTUCKY

Contacts:

Randal Rock

USDA-Natural Resources

Conservation Service

180 Beasley Road

Versailles, KY 40383

606-873-4941

rrock@kcc.fsa.usda.gov

Douglas Hines

USDA-Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Route 7, Box 37

Harrison Square Shopping Center

Cynthiana, KY 41031-8800

606-234-3364

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (livestock)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

• pathogens

Project Activities:

• alternative livestock

exclusion practices (pumps,

electric fencing)

Results:

• monitoring in progress

Elkhorn Creek BMP Demonstration Project:

Farmers See Water Supply Alternatives in Action

Fayette, Franklin, Scott, and Woodford Counties, Kentucky

Elkhorn Creek drains 311,000 acres in Fayette,

Franklin, Scott, and Woodford Counties in Kentucky. At one time, the stream was ranked among

the best in the nation for smallmouth bass fishing.

It continues to be a valuable recreational resource

and has provided an emergency source of drinking water during prolonged summer droughts.

The Elkhorn Creek watershed has been

identified as impaired due to sediment, nutrient,

and pathogen loading from nonpoint and point

sources of pollution. Livestock production is

important in the watershed and potentially contributes a significant part of the nonpoint source

pollutant loading. Direct access of livestock to

streams in the watershed contributes to the stream

degradation. This degradation affects water quality, aquatic habitat, and recreation activities. Primary contact recreation (swimming) and warm

water aquatic habitat uses are being adversely

affected in much of the watershed.

Livestock management alternatives

Often, traditional methods of excluding livestock

from streams and providing livestock water supply

are not cost-effective or practical. However,

promising fencing systems and water supply alternatives are available. The principal objective of

this project is to demonstrate to farmers four

alternatives for managing livestock: the ram pump;

the pasture pump (cattle-activated pump); the

solar-powered water pump; and use of limitedaccess watering points, using modern electric

fencing components.

The solar-powered livestock watering system

excludes livestock from the stream by using a

solar-powered electric fence charger. So far, solar

pump system performance has been very good. In

full sunlight, the system pumps about 180 gallons

per hour. The pasture pump (or nose pump) is a

cow-activated diaphragm pump, reputed to be

quite dependable. Use of this pump is limited,

however, because the pump can’t be used when

temperatures are below freezing. Another demonstration farm uses a limited access watering point,

using modern electrified water gaps. This type of

system reduces but does not eliminate livestock

access to a stream.

These systems have the potential to protect

stream quality while providing a cleaner, safer

water supply for livestock. To facilitate acceptance

of the new management practices, four demonstration farms were located in the watershed.

Because this project emphasizes use of nontraditional best management practices (BMPs), the use

of field days as an educational tool is very important and is an integral part of the project.

Kentucky

http://water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/grants.htm
64

Results in progress

Monitoring of changes in water quality and habitat

resulting from the use of BMPs is ongoing. One year

of stream data was collected for each of four demonstration farm sites before installation of BMPs,

and 2 years of post-BMP data are to be collected.

Parameters measured include total Kjeldahl nitrogen,

NO2-NO3 nitrogen, ammonia, total phosphorus,

water pH, temperature, conductivity, turbidity, and

fecal coliform bacteria. Monitoring is conducted at

upstream and downstream stations at each site.

The demonstration sites have provided opportunities for local farmers to share their experiences

with alternative technologies for providing livestock

water and to encourage their neighbors to consider

the benefits of reducing livestock access to riparian

areas. The use of local examples has proven very

effective in promoting nontraditional farm practices. The project is already considered a success in

that it has resulted in more adoption of rotational

grazing and livestock exclusion from the creeks in

the project area and even outside the project area.

Bayou Plaquemine Brule:

Louisiana Applies Satellite Imagery to Watershed Planning and Management

Bayou Plaquemine Brule, Louisiana

LOUISIANA

Contact:

Jan Boydstun

Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 82215

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215

225-765-0773

jan_b@ldeq.org

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (croplands)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• organic loads

Project Activities:

• GIS map of land use

classifications

Results:

• agricultural watershed

model to identify “hot

spots” of high pollutant

loading and predict BMP

effectiveness

As states continue to implement watershed planning

and management strategies, several analytical tools

are necessary to classify the types of land use present

in each watershed. One tool that has become important for Louisiana’s Nonpoint Source Management

Program is satellite imagery. The images provide so

much detail on the watershed that the people involved with developing management strategies,

educational programs, monitoring designs, or mathematical models can clearly see what needs to be

done. The maps are also very important for educating farmers, landowners, and public officials about

what a watershed is and the complexity of land use

patterns. The visual image seems to provide a basis

for all of the people involved in watershed planning

and management to begin to understand what steps

will be necessary to implement best management

practices (BMPs) and reduce nonpoint source pollution loads that are affecting water quality.

Pilot watershed project

The pilot watershed project where this geographic

information system (GIS) tool was initially used

was Bayou Plaquemine Brule, a bayou that flows

through the Mermentau River Basin in southwestern Louisiana. This is rice and crawfish country,

rich in Cajun heritage and traditions that have

existed since the 1700s. Bayou Plaquemine Brule

is on the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters and

is not meeting the designated uses for fishing or

swimming. The high sediment and organic loads

that enter the water body each spring affect the

dissolved oxygen concentrations and cause the

water body to fail to meet water quality standards.

The Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality (LDEQ) prioritized the Bayou

Plaquemine Brule for a Total Maximum Daily

Load (TMDL) in 1998 and completed all of the

sampling and modeling involved to develop the

http://nonpoint.deq.state.la.us/nonpoint.html

Louisiana
65

TMDL by December 1999. The results of the

TMDL study indicated that a 50 percent nonpoint

source load reduction was needed in the upper

tributaries of the bayou and a 30 percent load

reduction was needed in the main stem.

Application of GIS to land use classification

To allocate this pollutant load to the various types

of land uses or crops in the watershed, more detailed information was needed on land use patterns.

LDEQ’s GIS Center agreed to tackle this complicated task by purchasing and classifying Landsat 5

Thematic Mapper satellite imagery of Bayou

Plaquemine Brule. Before the imagery could be

classified, a multi-temporal data set had to be created from three separate scenes of source satellite

imagery. The resultant data set was classified, producing a map of Bayou Plaquemine Brule that

contains land use data for all of the major crops

grown in the watershed during the 1998 growing

season. This map was the result of a year of coordinated effort among numerous individuals and

included extensive amounts of both lab and fieldwork. Furthermore, interagency cooperation was

essential to the success of this project and resulted in

a maximization of all available resources. Agencies

involved included the Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality; the Louisiana Department

of Agriculture and Forestry, Office of Soil and

Water Conservation; the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources

Conservation Service [NRCS]); the Acadia Parish

Soil and Water Conservation District; and the

St. Landry Soil and Water Conservation District.

Watershed modeling and monitoring

Once the land use classification was completed,

LDEQ’s Nonpoint Source Unit began work with

the NRCS and the Agricultural Research Service

on an agricultural watershed model called

AnnAGNPS. This watershed model is being used

to predict the amount of water and sediment

transported through the watershed and to assist in

identifying “hot spots” of high pollutant loading.

The model also allows LDEQ to predict the

effectiveness of BMPs that have been recommended for reducing pollutant loads to the bayou

from rice, sugarcane, and crawfish farms. The

result is that LDEQ is now working with Louisiana State University’s Agricultural Center, NRCS,

and the local Soil and Water Conservation District

on a comprehensive watershed implementation

strategy that will be implemented over the next

3 years. The water bodies will be carefully monitored as BMPs are implemented to track the water

quality response to implementation of the practices. As these data are collected, they will be

shared with the farmers so that they can know

whether their efforts have been successful. Local

meetings with the farmers are being held to inform them of the watershed effort and ask for

their support.

Future activities

LDEQ has prioritized five additional watersheds

for this type of intensive watershed planning and

management. Each of the watersheds is in a different part of the state, where the soils, hydrology,

land use patterns, and water bodies function differently. The goal is to have a broad database that

can be used throughout the state and guide future

watershed planning and management in each of

the watersheds where the water body is not fully

supporting the designated uses. This type of

comprehensive watershed planning effort requires

many partners, including local universities, educators, landowners, and resource agencies, but it

results in an effective process for understanding

how watersheds function and how water bodies

can be improved through long-term management.

Louisiana
66

Land use in the Flat River and Red Chute Bayou

watersheds consists of 25,515 acres of agricultural

cropland, 29,348 acres of pastureland, and about

50 farms with an average size of 200 acres. The

1998 National Water Quality Inventory (305(b)

report) indicates that the two waterbodies only

partially meet their designated uses because of

nutrients, siltation, organic enrichment, habitat

alteration, and pathogen indicators. Soil erosion is

a major problem in the watershed, as well as nutrients related to fertilizer usage.

A 319 project was initiated in the watershed to

address the impacts of soil erosion. For this project,

1,100 acres of pastureland and 600 acres of row

cropland were selected to install grade stabilization

structures and implement best management practices (BMPs). Education regarding land-use practices

was also emphasized through field days, agency

cooperation, and spreading the word through the

farm community to influence other landowners in

the watershed to use these practices.

Flat River and Red Chute Bayou Watersheds:

BMPs Reduce Soil Loss

Flat River/Red Chute Bayou, Louisiana

Installing grade stabilization structures and

implementing BMPs have significantly reduced

soil loss to the watershed. The reduction of soil

loss for this project was calculated using the

Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. The result was a soil loss savings of 4,120 tons. Stabilization structures alone saved 595.4 tons of soil;

2,589 tons of soil were saved on pastureland;

and 936 tons of soil were saved on the row

cropland.

The project will continue until September 2001

and will add four new grade stabilization structures

and BMPs on more pastureland and cropland. In

addition to the 319 project, other programs have

addressed environmental concerns in the watersheds.

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program

(EQIP) encompasses 5,077 acres, and the Wetlands

Reserve Program (WRP) encompasses 3,500 acres in

the watersheds. These two watersheds are scheduled

for data collection through the 5-year basin cyclic

monitoring program in 2002.

LOUISIANA

Contact:

Jan Boydstun

Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 82215

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215

225-765-0773

jan_b@ldeq.org

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (cropland,

pastureland)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• grade stabilization

structures

Results:

• soil loss savings of 4,120

tons

http://nonpoint.deq.state.la.us/nonpoint.html

Louisiana
67

Highland Lake Watershed Project:

Hotspots Model Links Land Use and Water Quality

Bridgton, Maine

Like many lakes in southern Maine, Highland

Lake has experienced a long history of adverse

watershed development patterns. Highland Lake is

a picturesque, blue water lake in the foothills of

the White Mountains of western Maine. The

1,300-acre lake is the centerpiece for the town of

Bridgton, Maine. The watershed was developed in

stages: the expansive farm fields of the 1800s

gave way to reforestation and second homes in an

odd combination of old land uses and new development patterns. Since the early 1900s, 10 miles

of shoreline frontage have been developed. Access roads were designed and built at a time when

eroding roads were not believed to be pollution

sources. Although much of the land remains

forested, geographic information system (GIS)

studies showed that existing developed areas

accounted for 70 percent of the phosphorus

reaching the lake.

The development patterns have affected the

lake’s water quality. Currently, the Lakes Environmental Association (LEA), a nonprofit conservation

group, considers the lake at risk for developing algae

blooms. Long-term monitoring data indicate the lake

is threatened with gradual declines in water clarity

and dissolved oxygen. A persistent loss of oxygen

would reduce or eliminate trout habitat. In the lake’s

deeper waters, phosphorus is recycling in the bottom

sediments. Increases in phosphorus levels could lead

to significant declines in water quality and aquatic

habitat. Reductions in water quality could lead to

financial problems as well: recent studies by the

University of Maine and the Maine Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) show a direct

relationship between high lake water clarity and

higher property values. Concerns have been raised

that property values along Highland Lake’s shoreline,

currently valued at $17 million, could decrease if the

lake’s water quality worsens.

Reducing phosphorus and sediment

These concerns prompted LEA to carry out an

intense, 3-year section 319 project (January 1997

to March 2000) to control and reduce pollution

impacts on the lake. As a first step, LEA used

DEP’s phosphorus loading methodology to determine a phosphorus reduction goal for the watershed. It was estimated that a reduction of 50

pounds of phosphorus per year would result in a

noticeable improvement in water quality.

LEA then used GIS technology and its “Phosphorus Hotspots Model” to assess the watershed.

The model overlays land use information (GIS

coverage) with phosphorus export coefficients for

each land use, adjusted for soil type, slope, and zones

of proximity to the lakeshore or shorelines of tributaries. “Our model represents an automated way of

applying common sense principles of phosphorus

www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/docwatershed/npsstrategy.pdf

Maine

MAINE

Contact:

Norm Marcotte

Nonpoint Source

Coordinator

Maine Department of

Environmental Protection

State House Station #17

Augusta, ME 04333

207-287-7727

norm.g.marcotte@state.me.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban runoff

• erosion

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• phosphorus

• sediment

Project Activities:

• erosion control training and

BMPs

Results:

• reduction of 14.3 pounds

of phosphorus in the first

year
68

export in order to better understand the effects of a

watershed’s land use patterns on water quality,”

explains Peter Lowell, Executive Director of LEA.

As an adjunct to this method, LEA conducted a field survey of secondary roads under

deluge-like storm conditions. Observing areas

under a worst-case scenario helped to identify

erosion sites and offered ideas regarding which

management practices would be most effective.

Throughout the project, LEA collaborated

with volunteers and key organizations, especially

Portland Water District and DeLuca-Hoffman

Associates, along with the Town of Bridgton, the

Town of Sweden, Maine DEP, and EPA. LEA

worked with its partners to encourage, design, and

construct “fixes” using a multifaceted approach.

Under the project’s Clean Lakes Check-Up

program, LEA assisted property owners with a

wide range of storm water runoff and erosion

problems. Upon request, LEA conducted site

visits and developed field reports and detailed

erosion control plans. In total, 42 Clean Lake

Check-Ups were performed.

Erosion Control Workshops, focusing on

camp road maintenance, shoreline buffer strips,

and a wide range of erosion control techniques,

were held over three seasons. LEA and Maine

DEP staff also provided training on the latest

erosion control techniques to earth-moving contractors, resulting in the certification of 17 contractors. In addition, LEA worked closely with the

CEO from the Town of Bridgton to assist code

enforcement officers in preventing and addressing

shoreline violations. LEA worked closely with

contractors on a variety of sediment problems

related to roads and riparian buffers, resulting in

the installation of best management practices

(BMPs) at 19 key site locations.

Encouraging results

After the BMPs were installed, LEA recalculated

the Hotspots maps in consultation with engineering staff from Deluca-Hoffman Associates. The

difference between the preconstruction and

postconstruction phosphorus export represented

the reduction in phosphorus export as a result of

BMP construction. It was found that the BMPs

installed under this one project accounted for a

reduction of 14.3 pounds of phosphorus. LEA

will continue to work with the community on a

long-term program to achieve phosphorus reductions closer to the 50 pounds per year goal.

LEA, Maine DEP, and EPA New England

are encouraged by the overall results of the Highland Lake project. In April 2000 EPA New England presented LEA with an EPA Merit Award

for its 30-year history of exceptional work and its

efforts on the Highland Lake project. Peter Lowell

recapped the project’s success: “The project significantly raised awareness among all interest

groups in the watershed. The ability to quantify

the water quality impact of BMPs will continue to

be a powerful tool in encouraging ongoing efforts

to protect this lake and many others.”

Maine
69

Silver Spring Brook Watershed Demonstration Project:

Landowners’ Cooperation Plus Town’s Commitment Equals Success

Limestone, Maine

The Silver Spring Brook watershed encompasses

about 1,400 acres, 42 percent of which are cropland. The remaining acreage is either forested or

in the Conservation Reserve Program. Over the

years, the stream’s water quality had become degraded to the point of being almost unusable.

Field roads, ditches, stream crossings, and sections

of some fields were identified as significant contributors to the stream’s degradation.

Silver Spring Brook had threefold value to

the town of Limestone: it was the town’s drinking

water supply, a cold-water habitat for native brook

trout, and the feeder for the community swimming area. Heavy sedimentation resulted in high

raw turbidity readings, exceeding federal drinking

water standards, threatening the cold-water habitat

for native brook trout, and endangering the town’s

only recreational swimming area.

Cooperation of landowners

The Town of Limestone formed a partnership with

the Central Aroostook Soil and Water Conservation

District to plan and implement a 319 project,

funded through the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and MDEP were consulted on how

best to solve the problem. There were two key

components to the project’s success. One was the

cooperation of adjacent landowners—all farmers—and the other was the town’s commitment of

municipal staff and equipment to the installation

of the farm road best management practices

(BMPs).

A variety of erosion controls and land use

practices were installed throughout the project

area. Diversion ditches were constructed to divert

the flow of water away from the brook, and turnouts were built to divert road flow into the woods.

Culverts were replaced and new ones added,

surrounded by riprap, to allow unimpeded stream

flow. A sediment pond was also constructed to

collect runoff from cropland.

The farm access road that crossed the stream

was graded and crowned, and the stream crossing

www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/docwatershed/npsstrategy.pdf

Runoff from farm roads caused excess sediment to enter Silver Spring Brook.

Maine

MAINE

Contact:

Kathy Hoppe

Maine Department of

Environmental Protection

Northern Maine Regional

Office

1235 Central Drive

Presque Isle, ME 04769

207-764-0477

kathy.m.hoppe@state.me.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (crops)

• farm access roads

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• erosion control/land use

practices (diversion ditches,

culverts, sediment pond,

ditches/road improvements,

buffers)

Results:

• decreased turbidity

readings

• improved recreational

opportunities

• improved native brook

trout habitat
70

was repaired and stabilized. Workers installed

drain tile to control the water from a natural

spring that had been causing erosion and deterioration of the farm access road. They reshaped and

stabilized existing road ditches and constructed

new ditches. Grass buffers were also established

along the fields.

Several acres of highly erodible cropland

were placed in conservation reserve, thanks to the

cooperation of Glen Beaulieu, whose farm borders the brook on which most of the BMPs were

constructed. “I couldn’t cultivate that acreage

during wet years,” he explains, “and I was losing a

lot of topsoil. I was happy to place that land into

the Conservation Reserve Program.” Beaulieu says

that since the BMPs were installed, there have not

been any washes, the diversion ditches are working, and the water looks much cleaner.

Decreased turbidity

Before the project, raw turbidity readings averaged

1.99 nephelometric turbidity units, or NTU (in 1995

and 1996), exceeding the federal drinking water

standard of 1.6 NTU treated turbidity. Raw turbidity

readings for the same period in 1997 and 1998

averaged 1.225 NTU—a 38 percent improvement

even before fully establishing all the BMPs. A dry

summer and a very wet fall, along with plantings of a

potato crop (highly erodible), contributed to an

increase in turbidity readings in 1999. Data have

since become unavailable, however, because the

town switched from a surface water source (using

Silver Spring Brook) to a groundwater source after

the new federal drinking water standard of 0.50

NTU treated turbidity was established.

The native brook trout habitat has significantly

benefited from the decrease in murky conditions.

Lower turbidity readings have also resulted in

improved swimming conditions for the community,

improving recreational opportunities. Although

many seemingly inconsequential unstable land use

practices can add up to water quality degradation,

through the commitment of local people and

agencies and effective teamwork, water pollution

can be prevented and water quality restored.

Farmers cooperated to install BMPs to divert runoff away from the creek and

into the woods.

Maine
71

Forests cover about 2.7 million acres of Maryland,

representing 40 percent of the state’s total land

area. Forest health is inextricably linked to healthy

streams and a robust Chesapeake Bay. But many

forest harvest activities, including poorly designed

haul roads, skid trails, landings (loading areas), and

stream crossings, can lead to significant inputs of

sediment to stream channels, resulting in degradation of water quality and impacts on living resources. The removal of trees adjacent to streams

can also cause elevated stream temperatures,

reducing habitat quality for fish and benthic

macroinvertebrate populations.

To assist loggers and landowners in meeting

environmental requirements, the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have developed a number of forestry programs. Sediment

control plans are required before undertaking

major earth-disturbing activity; best management

practices (BMPs) and streamside buffer zones are

required when logging in nontidal wetlands; and a

special “Timber Harvest Plan” must be approved

before any timber may be harvested within 1,000

feet of the Chesapeake Bay. DNR’s aggressive

Stream Releaf Program even has a goal of establishing 600 miles of riparian forest buffer restoration plantings by the year 2010!

Testing BMPs

Although studies show that most Maryland loggers follow timber harvest BMPs, there have been

no studies in the state reporting the effectiveness

of these BMPs in protecting water quality under

local conditions. Using 319 funding, a 4-year

study was designed to test the hypothesis that

forest harvest operations have no long-term

significant impacts on stream benthos, temperature, and suspended sediment if forestry BMPs

are implemented.

Two small forested watersheds, located on

Sugarloaf Mountain in Frederick County, Maryland, were monitored from August 1995 until July

1999 as part of a paired watershed study to evaluate the effectiveness of Maryland’s BMPs for

timber harvest operations. One watershed, designated the “treatment” watershed, underwent a

controlled level of timber harvesting with strict

adherence to BMPs, while the “control” watershed remained unharvested.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Maryland’s Forestry BMPs:

Paired Watershed Study Tests BMP Performance

Frederick County, Maryland

www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/czm/nps/npsplan.html

Maryland

MARYLAND

Contacts:

Phil Pannill

Maryland Department of

Natural Resources

Forestry, Wildlife & Heritage Div.

Regional Watershed Forester

301-791-4010

ppannill@dnr.state.md.us

John McCoy

MD-DNR, Chesapeake & Coastal

Watershed Service

Watershed Restoration Division

410-260-8803

jmccoy@dnr.state.md.us

Ken Sloate

MD-DNR, Chesapeake & Coastal

Watershed Service

Nonpoint Source Program

410-260-8736

ksloate@dnr.state.md.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• forestry

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• forestry BMPs

• paired watershed study

Results:

• stabilized stream

temperature

• reduced suspended solid

concentrations

• improved benthic

macroinvertebrate

populations
72

A wide range of BMPs were installed in the

treatment watershed, including a 20-foot-long

portable timber bridge, a 21-inch-diameter

stream-crossing culvert, streamside forest buffer

(streamside management zone), drainage outsloping, broad-based dips, rolling dips, grade

breaks and water bars, and the use of geotextile

and stone for haul road stabilization. The logging

contractors also complied with the BMPs by

following marked skid trails and performing

postharvest stabilization of roads, landings, and

skid trails where required. On slopes over 10

percent, roads, main skid trails, and landings were

seeded, limed, fertilized, and mulched.

Timber was harvested in 1997 on 73 acres of

the treatment watershed, using a variety of silvicultural prescriptions. Monitoring of baseflow and

stormflow suspended sediment samples, temperature, and benthic macroinvertebrates continued

until July 1999.

Successful results

The results of this study indicate that the BMPs

were effective in preventing significant impacts on

stream water quality, biology, and habitat. There

was no significant difference in total suspended

solid concentrations or yields due to the harvesting activities. The harvesting also did not significantly affect stream habitat, benthic

macroinvertebrate populations, or stream temperature. Most BMPs performed as intended, and

none allowed observable sediment input into

waterways. Logger awareness and training were

also critical to effective use of BMPs because

implementation and installation are ultimately

under the loggers’ control.

Over the past decade, the Town of Wareham,

Massachusetts, has begun one of the

Commonwealth’s most complete programs to

address the pollution problems caused by storm

water discharges along the town’s shoreline. Contamination from storm water runoff, particularly

suspended solids and fecal coliform contamination, has forced many shellfish beds and public

bathing beaches along Massachusetts’ coast to

close. The closures can range from periodic closure for a few days after heavy rainstorms to

Broad Marsh River Storm Water Remediation Project:

Infiltration Structures Reduce Pollutants, Save Shellfish Beds

Wareham, Massachusetts

MASSACHUSETTS

Contact:

Jane Peirce

Massachusetts Department

of Environmental

Protection

627 Main Street

Worcester, MA 01608

508-767-2792

Jane.Peirce@state.ma.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• storm water runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• suspended solids

• fecal coliform bacteria

Project Activities:

• infiltration structures

Results:

• 99.99 percent removal of

fecal coliform bacteria

• 90 percent removal of

fecal streptococcus

bacteria

• elimination of petroleum

hydrocarbons and zinc

• shellfish beds reopened

complete year-round closure due to nonpoint

source contamination. Like many coastal communities, Wareham relies on fishing and tourism for

its economic vitality. Faced with the prospect of

losing its unique and valuable coastal resources,

the town began to search for ways to address the

contamination problem.

Selecting the right alternative

In 1993 the Town of Wareham and the Buzzards

Bay Project received 319 funding to remediate

www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wm/wmpubs.htm

Massachusetts
73

storm water discharges along the lower reaches of

the Broad Marsh River. The goal was to reopen 64

acres of adjacent softshell clam and quahog beds.

The project also intended to demonstrate that

leaching catch basins could be an effective storm

water remediation tool to reduce coliform contamination in the town’s coastal waters.

During consultations with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, several alternatives for treating

storm water discharges were considered. The site

conditions were difficult—a high ratio of impervious surface and areas of high ground water. Narrow roads, existing gas, sewer, and water lines, and

groundwater close to the surface made designing

the system challenging.

Because of land constraints, the final project

design involved installation of “under-the road”

infiltration structures along road rights-of-way.

Two different types of infiltration structures were

installed with the purpose of storing and treating

the first 1⁄2 inch of rainfall. In areas with adequate

separation from groundwater, 4-foot by 4-foot

concrete leaching galleys were installed; in areas

with shallower groundwater, shallower plastic

infiltration chambers were installed. The infiltration structures were installed at 15 storm water

discharge points along the banks of the lower

Broad Marsh River. Instead of being discharged

directly into the river through storm drainpipes,

the storm water would be directed into infiltration

structures, allowing for filtration of the pollutants.

Reopening the shellfish beds

Initial postconstruction monitoring data indicated

that the infiltration systems were very effective in

removing fecal coliform bacteria (99.99 percent

removal) and fecal streptococcus bacteria (90

percent removal) from the storm water runoff.

The infiltration systems were also quite effective

in removing petroleum hydrocarbons and zinc.

These pollutants were present at low levels in the

storm water prior to the infiltration treatment;

however, they were not detected during

postconstruction monitoring.

 Two and a half years after installation of the

leaching catchment basins, Massachusetts Division

of Marine Fisheries (DMF) announced that the

shellfish beds in the Broad Marsh River would be

reopened on a conditional basis. The beds continue to be temporarily closed after heavy rainfalls,

but the large softshell clam and quahog resource is

now open to shellfishermen most of the time.

Success inspires additional projects

Other successful 319 projects have since

followed. A storm water treatment system was

installed in the upper reaches of the Broad Marsh

River, with the hope that over time water quality

will improve to the point that the Broad Marsh

River shellfish beds can be reclassified and opened

without restrictions of any kind.

In addition to the continued storm water

remediation work on the Broad Marsh River, town

officials have set their sites on reopening the

larger shellfish beds in Onset Harbor. Onset

Harbor is larger and more open than the Broad

Marsh River, and its watershed area is heavily

developed and quite urban. The town now has

two additional ongoing 319 grants that are being

used to target the storm water discharges from

these urbanized areas. In recent correspondence,

Michael Parola, Harbormaster/Shellfish Constable

for Wareham, confirmed that storm water

remediation efforts have exceeded expectations.

The town’s current goal is to remediate “any and

all active storm drains” because of their overall

effect on water quality and on the town’s shellfish

beds. Parola believes that storm water remediation

has been largely responsible for allowing the

Massachusetts
74

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries to

upgrade miles of publicly accessible shoreline.

The current remediation projects in Onset Bay

and its tributary, the East River, have the potential

to allow the DMF to upgrade fully half of Onset

Bay’s shellfish beds from their current classification, seasonally closed, to open and approved for

shellfish harvesting.

Like so many coastal communities that rely

on fishing and tourism for their livelihood,

Wareham faced the loss of the coastal resources

that make the town unique and vital. Wareham

has taken full advantage of the opportunity that

the 319 Program presented to address nonpoint

source pollution problems and restore coastal

resources for all to enjoy. Given the demonstrated success of the Marsh River Project in

both reopening shellfish beds and inspiring a

community to institute a phased, long-term storm

water management program, the Massachusetts

319 Program should encourage other communities to do the same.

Lake Tashmoo Storm Water Remediation Project:

First Flush Leaching Basins More Effective Than Expected

Town of Tisbury (Island of Martha’s Vineyard), Massachusetts

MASSACHUSETTS

Contact:

Jane Peirce

Massachusetts Department

of Environmental

Protection

627 Main Street

Worcester, MA 01608

508-767-2792

Jane.Peirce@state.ma.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• storm water runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• suspended solids

• fecal coliform bacteria

Project Activities:

• 12 first flush leaching basins

Results:

• 91 percent decrease in

fecal coliforms

• 98 percent decrease in

total coliforms

• elimination of oil, grease,

barium, chromium, and

lead

• shellfish beds remain open

Contamination from storm water runoff, particularly suspended solids and fecal coliform contamination, has forced many shellfish beds and public

bathing beaches along the Massachusetts coast to

close. The closures can range from a few days to

the summer to the entire year, depending on the

type and level of contamination. The town of

Tisbury on the Island of Martha’s Vineyard has

numerous “hotspots” where access to shellfish

beds and public beaches has been restricted because of storm water contamination. The residents

of Tisbury rely on fishing and tourism for their

livelihood, so it is imperative for the town to find

ways to effectively treat storm water contamination.

At 1 mile in length, Lake Tashmoo is one of

the larger of the saltwater lakes on the island

that feed into the sea. It is an ideal habitat and

breeding ground for oysters, scallops, clams,

mussels, crabs, lobsters, and a variety of fish

species that serve as the food source for larger

fish, all of which are commercially harvested as

the backbone of the island’s fishing industry. In

addition, the lake has a major beach area, a town

dock, and boat moorings and is used for swimming, sailing, wind surfing, boating, and

sportsfishing.

Before 1994 hard shell clam, mussel, and

scallop beds near the storm water outlet were

showing contamination from fecal coliform bacteria, heavy metals, and oil and grease. The Division

of Marine Fisheries routinely closed the beds after

large rainfall events because of fecal coliform

www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wm/wmpubs.htm

Massachusetts
75

levels in the water. The contaminant levels were

consistently high enough that the shellfish beds

were on the verge of seasonal closure, which

would have effectively put the resource off-limits

to the local townspeople and to the large seasonal

population that flocks to Martha’s Vineyard during the summer months. Recreational use of the

lake is a major tourist attraction, and the town

considered maintaining the lake in a viable and

usable state imperative.

Adding leaching basins

In 1994 Tisbury Waterways, Inc., and the Town of

Tisbury received 319 funding to install a series of

12 “first flush” leaching basins along road drains

to capture and treat the road runoff that was

contributing to the contamination of highly productive shellfish beds at one end of Lake

Tashmoo. The first flush basins, installed along a

1.6-mile stretch of road, were designed to treat

the first 1⁄4 inch of rainfall, which contains most

of the contaminants.

Each basin consists of a 6-foot by 6-foot

perforated cement vessel filled with limestone,

surrounded by a gravel bed. The limestone in the

basins is covered with hydrophobic, oil-absorbing

pads, which help to separate the hydrocarbons

from the runoff. The limestone in the pits raises

the pH of the runoff, causing heavy metals to

precipitate and accumulate in the pit. Finally, the

first flush basins provide additional residence time

for fecal coliform bacteria to oxidize and decay.

The treated runoff then passes through the gravel

surrounding the pits into the subsurface soil.

Exceeding expectations

Comparison of contaminant concentrations in

Lake Tashmoo before and after installation of the

basins showed significant improvement in water

quality. Samples from Lake Tashmoo during rainfall events showed fecal coliform and total

coliform levels going down by 91 percent and 98

percent. Oil and grease could not be detected in

the treated effluent; barium, chromium, and lead,

which had all been present before installing the

basins, could no longer be detected in the effluent. The project was deemed a success and recommended as a model for other storm water

hotspots around Tisbury.

The system is exceeding the town’s initial

expectations. Although it was designed to capture

and treat the first 1⁄4 inch of storm water runoff,

the system appears to be capturing and treating the

first 1⁄2 inch of runoff. The sandy soils that underlie

the leaching catch basins allow the treated storm

water to percolate into the ground more quickly

than the designers anticipated, thus allowing the

system to capture additional storm water.

As a result, since the basins were installed

there has been no discharge at all to Lake

Tashmoo during moderate rains. Even during

heavy rainfall, less storm water is discharged into

the lake and the water continues to be of significantly better quality than before the basins were

added. The Massachusetts Division of Marine

Fisheries has continued to monitor water quality

at the shellfish beds. The beds have not been

closed during the past several years, and there is

no longer any thought of seasonal bed closure.

Massachusetts
76

Innovative Farmers of Michigan:

Blending Farm Profitability and Water Quality Protection

Huron, Tuscola, and Bay Counties, Michigan

MICHIGAN

Contact:

Jim LeCureux

Michigan State University

Extension

Tuscola County

982-672-3870

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (cropland)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

• pesticides

Project Activities:

• conservation tillage

Results:

• reduced soil erosion (70

percent less from water

and 60 percent less from

wind)

The Saginaw Bay watershed is the largest watershed in Michigan, covering more than 8,700

square miles. The water quality of the bay is affected by sediment, nutrients, and pesticide inputs

from runoff and wind erosion. Agriculture is the

major land use in the Eastern Coastal Basin of the

watershed (Huron and Tuscola Counties and part

of Bay County), representing 95 percent of the

land area. The major crops are dry beans, sugar

beets, corn, and wheat.

The Innovative Farmers of Michigan is a

group of agricultural producers, supported by more

than 60 partners representing the agricultural industry, lenders, equipment companies, commodity

groups, and federal, state, and local agencies. The

group’s two primary objectives are reducing the

amount of sediment entering the Saginaw Bay and

altering farming practices to reduce nutrient and

pesticide runoff while retaining profitability for the

farmer. “All my fields drain to large ditches, to

larger ditches, and eventually to Saginaw Bay,” says

Pat Sheridan, Tuscola Innovative Farmers, “and I

don’t want my soil in the bay.”

So Sheridan joined the Innovative Farmers

of Michigan, which was organized in 1994 in

Huron, Tuscola, and Sanilac Counties. Members

pay a $100 annual fee, entitling them to membership in the Michigan Agricultural Stewardship

Association and subscriptions to No-Till Farmer

and Conservation Digest magazines. In 1996 the

Michigan State University Extension-Huron

County received a section 319 grant of $71,863

for a 3-year Innovative Farmers project. The

Innovative Farmers aimed to reduce soil erosion,

improve soil health, and increase family farm

income by using reduced tillage, cover crops, and

a totally integrated system.

Confronting traditional farming practices

Before the Innovative Farmers, reduced-tillage

corn and soybean cropping systems had been

successfully used throughout the Midwest. MichiCrop residue forms a protective layer on the field

that prevents soil from washing away during

rainstorms.

The emergence of dry beans is enhanced by using a spoke closing wheel on

the planter.

Michigan

www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/nps/npshome.htm
77

gan farmers, however, were reluctant to use highresidue cropping systems for beans and sugar

beets because such high-value crops would still

make fall-spring tillage profitable. In addition,

many farmers in the area assumed that it isn’t

possible to warm the soil in the spring, prepare a

good seed bed in heavier soils, and achieve adequate weed control without tilling in the fall and

the following spring.

The key to the Innovative Farmers’ success is

that rather than relying on research and information provided by other sources, the group designed and conducted the studies themselves. In

one of the first studies undertaken by the group,

14 producers collected 127 water samples from

their tile outlets. Concentrations and flow rates

were used to determine the extent of nutrients

and the associated dollar loss from their fields.

This activity helped producers better understand

the nutrient and soil interactions, as well as the

impacts on water quality.

Valuable findings

Studies conducted by the Innovative Farmers yielded

many valuable findings for area farmers. Conservation tillage did not reduce yields of sugar beets, corn,

and dry beans when compared to conventional

tillage. In fact, corn yields significantly increased at

one of the demonstration sites. Farmers also learned

that the soil’s capacity to supply nitrogen to a growing crop increases with conservation tillage. Athough

phosphorus applications ceased for 6 years, the soil

fertility levels did not decrease.

At the end of the project, the water holding

capacity and water infiltration rates were also

higher for the limited-tillage sites. Conservation

tillage reduced the potential for soil erosion from

water by up to 70 percent and from wind by up to

60 percent, as compared to conventional tillage.

These results are making a difference. Several

farmers in the area have converted their operations

to zone till in the past 2 years. (In zone till, only a

small area is tilled at planting. The result is a conventional seedbed in the immediate seed zone while

the rest of the field remains untilled and covered

with residue to promote soil conservation.) Innovative Farmers members also report the increasing

use of the chisel tillage system and cover crops by

their neighbors. As these systems are used on a

wider scale, others will adopt them as they see the

success of fellow farmers. That is just what the

Innovative Farmers hoped to accomplish.

Clover is inserted into corn crops to provide more

cover and reduce erosion over the winter.

Michigan
78

Little Rabbit River Watershed Project:

One-to-One Approach Wins Landowners’ Support

Allegan County, Michigan

MICHIGAN

Contact:

AnneMarie Chavez

Allegan Conservation

District

616-673-8965

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (unrestricted

livestock access, plowing)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• agricultural BMPs (fencing,

streambank stabilization,

filter strip, sediment

detention, wetland

restoration)

Results:

• reduction of 19,852 tons

of sediment, 19,706

pounds of phosphorus,

and 39,321 pounds of

nitrogen

The Little Rabbit River Watershed Project demonstrates the effectiveness of community-based

watershed planning in addressing water quality

issues. In 1995, through the efforts of local leaders and a broad conservation partnership, a section 319 watershed grant of $380,936 was

awarded to the Allegan Conservation District.

This grant began a 5-year program that built a

team of proactive stakeholders to direct project

activities, develop a watershed management plan,

and implement best management practices

(BMPs) to protect water quality.

The 30,850-acre Little Rabbit River watershed

is in southwest Michigan, primarily in the northern

section of Allegan County. A small portion lies in

Byron Township in Southern Kent County. The

Little Rabbit River flows southwesterly to the

Rabbit River, a tributary of the Kalamazoo River.

The dominant land use in the watershed is agriculture. Sediment, nutrients, and high flow are adversely affecting the Little Rabbit. Unrestricted

livestock access, plowing up to the edge of the

watercourse, and conventional fall plowing were

commonly found throughout the watershed.

Partners and funding sources

The project’s Steering Committee consisted of a

broad range of active participants, including the

County Drain Commissioner, County Road Commission, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Farm Service Agency, Michigan State University

Extension, County Board of Commissioners, Dorr

Township Parks and Recreation, other township

officials, West Michigan Regional Planning Agency,

and local residents and agricultural producers. In

addition to 319 funding, other significant sources

of funding included the U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s Environmental Quality Incentives

Program (EQIP) and Michigan’s Groundwater

Stewardship Program.

The objectives of the project were to improve

water quality by reducing the amount of sediment

and nutrients entering surface water and promoting

farmland preservation and controlled development.

The Steering Committee decided that one key to

the project’s success would be to engage area landowners. The Steering Committee exceeded its goal

of contacting 50 landowners, reaching 64 landowners to discuss their water quality issues.

The Little Rabbit River watershed project worked to gain the support of local

landowners.

Michigan

www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/nps/npshome.htm
79

A number of best management practices

(BMPs) were installed as a result of the project,

including

• Implementation of 3,000 acres of mulchtill and no-till.

• Installation of more than 12,000 linear feet

of exclusion fencing.

• Installation of four stream crossings and a

watering facility.

• 190 linear feet of streambank stabilization.

• Installation of 18 acres of filter strips.

• Addition of five animal waste storage

facilities.

• Installation of two sediment detention and

two erosion control structures.

• Restoration of more than 9 acres of wetlands.

Successful reduction of pollutants

The quantity of sediment and nutrients entering

the Little Rabbit River was substantially reduced

with the installation of water quality-protective

BMPs. Pollution reductions were calculated for all

erosion control BMPs. The total amount of pollutants prevented from entering the Little Rabbit

River during the 3 years of project implementation was 19,852 tons of sediment, 19,706 pounds

of phosphorus, and 39,321 pounds of nitrogen.

In addition, the awareness of water quality

issues in the community increased. The local

residents stated that the project newsletter was a

primary source of conservation information. A

watershed logo was developed for use on T-shirts,

hats, and watershed cooperator signs, which created an identity for the watershed project.

The success of the project can be attributed

largely to the emphasis on one-to-one meetings

that built trust one person at a time. The watershed coordinator went to breakfast where the

farmers ate, using the opportunity to interact in a

relaxed social setting. The true partnership of the

agencies involved was also instrumental in the

project’s success. Other agencies that had rapport

with the agricultural community promoted the

Little Rabbit River Watershed Project, too, helping

to build credibility and trust.

Although the section 319 portion of the

Little Rabbit River Watershed Project is complete, water quality improvement and protection

efforts are continuing. EQIP funds are available

for agricultural BMP implementation. Watershed

planning and protection efforts have expanded

to the Rabbit River watershed and adjoining

watersheds (Macatawa, Gun River) as a direct

result of the positive response from the local

community.

A watershed logo, displayed on this cooperator’s sign, created an identity for

the watershed project.

Michigan
80

North St. Paul Urban Ecology Center:

Wetland Improvements Needed to Control Storm Water

North St. Paul, Minnesota

MINNESOTA

Contact:

Cliff Aichinger

Ramsey/Washington Metro

Watershed District

651-704-2089

cliff@rwmwd.org

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• storm water

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• construction of multicell

wetland treatment system

Results:

• storm water filtration

• increased wildlife and

plant diversity

• education center, research

site for invasive species

studies

In 1994 the City of North St. Paul identified a

potential wetland restoration project and nature

center, the Urban Ecology Center. The project site

was a 20-acre remnant of an old farm that had last

been a sod farm in 1950. The area had once been

part of a much larger area of seasonally wet wetland of approximately 150 acres.

The Ecology Center site

was also identified as a good

location to provide water

quality improvement for the

420-acre watershed, which

had been severely affected by

storm water leaving the site.

In addition, project managers

planned to include the restoration of a diverse wetland

and upland plant and animal

community that could be

studied by students from the

four area schools.

The project involved a

unique partnership of local,

regional, and state government that provided funding and technical assistance. The total cost of the 5-year project was

about $397,000. The project was funded in part by

$210,000 in grants from four different agencies.

The remainder of the project funding was supplied by the City of North St. Paul and the

Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 319

Program provided a $40,400 grant in 1997.

Water quality improvement and environmental

education

The restoration plan included modification to the

existing wetland to construct a multicell wetland

treatment system. The overall objective was not

only to improve the quality of storm water leaving

the site but also to design and develop the site as a

wetland environmental learning center. Environmental changes would be monitored and information used to make future improvements on this

site, as well as on other wetlands in the watershed.

The project would serve as a model for other

metro area communities and school districts.

Using city and District funds, two additional

parcels of private land were acquired as essential

environmental education and water quality elements of the project. A trailhead parking lot was

constructed on one site, providing convenient

access to the Urban Ecology Center for schoolchildren and other visitors. A wetland boardwalk,

trails, and an educational display were constructed,

providing information on the history of the site,

water quality improvement, and habitat management. A section of the display was set aside for

school classes to present their environmental

monitoring and research results to the community.

District staff, school classes, and sentencedto-serve crews completed restoration of all disBefore the restoration effort, the site was a

sod farm located on an area that had once

been a seasonal wetland.

www.pca.state.mn.us/water/nonpoint/mplan.html

Minnesota
81

turbed areas with native vegetation. Some schools

helped by growing some of the native grasses and

wildflowers from seed in their classrooms.

Water quality improvements

Project leaders report a number of improvements

as a result of the project. The first basin is collecting significant sedimentation, and the material is

removed every 2 years. Site observations have

documented a dramatic increase in use of the site

by wildlife. Plant diversity also has increased,

reflecting a good water quality condition.

Continuing benefits

Although completed in 1999, the project continues

to involve several local governments and state

agencies in management, monitoring, and research.

The site is now being used for a research project on

control methods for reed canary grass funded by

the District, the Department of Natural Resources,

the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and

the University of Minnesota. Reed canary grass is

an invasive plant that spreads very quickly in seasonally wet areas and crowds out most desirable

plants. Reed canary grass is the dominant plant in

the Urban Ecology Center. The primary challenge

to increasing vegetative and wildlife diversity will be

controlling the reed canary grass and successfully

reestablishing a native habitat. This project will

continue for several years.

Both plants and wildlife continue to thrive at the site, reflecting good water

conditions.

Over the years, a combination of factors had been

compounding, relentlessly contributing to the water

quality problems in the Prior Lake and Spring Lake

Watershed District. In addition to the impacts of

the agricultural community, new development was

taking its toll, along with the constant adverse

effects of failing septic systems in the watershed.

Both Spring Lake and Upper Prior Lake were

found to be hypereutrophic, while Lower Prior

Lake was mesotrophic. A reduction in phosphorus

levels was necessary to improve the quality of

Spring and Upper Prior Lakes; phosphorus concentrations needed to be maintained at their existing

levels to preserve the quality of Lower Prior Lake.

 Based on the recommendations of a Clean

Lakes Study completed in 1993, the Minnesota Clean

Water Partnership Project commenced. The initial

phase was designed to reduce nonpoint source

www.pca.state.mn.us/water/nonpoint/mplan.html

Minnesota

Prior Lake/Spring Lake Improvement Project:

Long-Term Implementation Strategy Off to a Good Start

Scott County, Minnesota

Contact:

Paul Nelson

Prior Lake/Spring Lake

Watershed District

16670 Franklin Trail, Suite 110

Prior Lake, MN 55372

952-447-4166

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban runoff (new

development)

• agriculture

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• phosphorus

Project Activities:

• wetland restoration

• streambank stabilization

• storm water treatment

systems

Results:

• removal of dissolved

phosphorus

MINNESOTA
82

phosphorus loads to the lakes. Funding and implementation assistance for this 6-year effort were

provided through the section 319 grant program.

Phase 1: A comprehensive approach to

restoration

During the first phase of the project, a number of

projects were successfully completed, while relationships were built with other agencies, citizens,

and organizations. Several projects aimed at controlling storm water runoff were accomplished,

including the construction of the Iron (Ferric

Chloride) Runoff Treatment Facility and installation of storm water treatment devices with road

improvements. Wetland restoration projects also

occurred, including the construction of the Highway 13 treatment wetland and conversion of the

Sand Point Park dry basin to a water quality pond.

In an effort to control the increasing threat of

sedimentation, several shoreline stabilization

projects were conducted. Among them were

projects to stablize the eroding channel in Fish

Point Park and to improve the desiltation basin

adjacent to Spring Lake. The community was also

involved in septic system education workshops,

yard waste management workshops, and soil testing

programs. No-till farming assistance was provided

to help encourage the adoption of such practices.

A successful first phase

Both citizen observations and monitoring data

indicate that the water quality is improving. Monitoring data show that the ferric chloride system is

operating as designed with respect to the removal

of dissolved phosphorus. In recognition of these

successes, the Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources named the Prior Lake/Spring Lake

Watershed District the 1998 Minnesota Watershed

District of the Year. Most importantly, trust has

improved between the agricultural constituents

and the District.

These successes enabled the District to convene another partnership for the second implementation phase. This phase builds on lessons learned

in the first phase, as well as some new efforts focusing more specifically on the lakes. Continuing

efforts include providing incentive payments for

conservation tillage and nutrient management, as

well as conducting additional wetland restorations

and constructing more water quality basins. In-lake

efforts will aim to control internal recycling of

phosphorus and manage submerged aquatic plants

with changing water clarity.

Additional benefits

The project’s initial successes have translated into

water quality management efforts beyond those

initiated by the grant program. These efforts include regulatory responses, such as the passage of a

“no phosphorus fertilizer” ordinance by the local

city, and revisions or improvements to the Watershed District’s rules regarding new development

and redevelopment. Agricultural improvements,

participation in the cropland filter strip program

and supplemental payments for participants in the

Conservation Reserve Program and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, continue.

Wetland restoration efforts are ongoing, and sewer

lines are now expanding into previously unsewered

areas around the lakes. Efforts to sustain the

progress continue, with completion of macrophyte

surveys and whole lake management plans.

In for the long haul

Overall, the District is pleased with the results to

date. Grant assistance allowed much more to be

accomplished than the District could have

achieved on its own. The District would have

preferred more immediate visual improvements

of the lake’s water quality. However, scientists

involved in the Clean Lakes Study had stated that

Minnesota
83

although only limited visual improvements would

occur as a result of the first phase, these efforts

were a necessary first step in achieving benefits in

subsequent phases. The District and its partners

realize that sustainable improvements will come

from a long-term implementation strategy.

Muddy Creek Watershed Demonstration Project:

BMPs Retain 3,500 Tons of Soil per Year

Tippah County, Mississippi

MISSISSIPPI

Contact:

Zoffee Dahmash

Mississippi Department of

Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 10385

Jackson, MS 39289-0385

601-961-5137

zoffee_dahmash@deq.state.ms.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (animal

operations, crops)

• forestry

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• conservation tillage

• streambank stabilization

Results:

• retention of more than

3,500 tons of soil

annually

Winding its way through the northern part of

Tippah County, Mississippi, Muddy Creek eventually flows into Tennessee. The creek’s drainage

area encompasses a total of 67,070 acres, of

which approximately 42 percent is in cropland,

31 percent in pastureland, and 25 percent in forest. Four dairy, 300 timber, 100 livestock, and 20

swine operations are also in the watershed. The

main agricultural products are soybeans and corn.

Classified as a Fish and Wildlife area, Muddy

Creek is designated as suitable for secondary

contact recreation, such as wading and occasional

swimming. Of primary concern to the local population and the neighboring population in Tennessee was the amount of sediment and nutrients

emptied by this creek into the Hatachie River in

Tennessee, designated as a Wild and Scenic River.

Water quality and land use assessments were

performed in the watershed, and 3 of the 10

tributaries were identified as having the most

agricultural operations. The land use assessment

evaluated the average soil erosion rate and the

magnitude of the animal operations in the watershed. The average soil loss from cropland and

pastureland in the watershed was estimated at 12.2

tons per acre per year. This amount of sediment

entering the watershed gave it a designation as a

priority watershed on the state’s priority watershed

list for agricultural nonpoint source pollution.

Installing best management practices

To address these concerns, the Muddy Creek

Watershed Demonstration Project was initiated by

establishing demonstration farms and agricultural

best management practices (BMPs). Conservation

tillage was widely promoted and accepted

throughout the watershed. The purpose of conservation tillage is to reduce ground disturbance

before crop planting, so that less soil and pollutants leave the field and enter the receiving stream.

Other BMPs included grade stabilization

structures (pipes), a pond, more than 2,500 feet of

diversion (a constructed ridge diverting the flow

of water), fencing, critical area planting (pine

trees), and streambank protection. Streambank

stabilization BMPs included earthwork, vegetative

cover, and rock riprap.

Dramatic reductions in erosion

As a result of the BMPs installed, more than 3,500

tons of soil is being retained on the land each year.

The BMPs dramatically reduced the amount of

annual soil erosion and the subsequent flow of

sediment into the Muddy Creek watershed.

Mississippi

www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/homepages.nsf
84

Roebuck Lake Demonstration Project:

Slotted-Board Risers Installed to Save Topsoil and Improve Water Quality

LeFlore County, Mississippi

MISSISSIPPI

Contact:

Zoffee Dahmash

Mississippi Department of

Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 10385

Jackson, MS 39289-0385

601-961-5137

zoffee_dahmash@deq.state.ms.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (croplands)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

• pesticides

Project Activities:

• grade stabilization

structures

Results:

• retention of more than

4,950 tons of topsoil per

year

• decreases in organic

carbon, total Kjeldahl

nitrogen, ammonia

nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite,

and total phosphorus

Roebuck Lake is a 580-acre lake in the Bear Creek

watershed in the central part of LeFlore County,

Mississippi. Its watershed encompasses an area of

11,200 acres. Roebuck Lake has tremendous

potential as a multiple-use recreational lake because some 101,500 people live within a 25-mile

radius. In the past the lake was well known for

water-skiing, swimming, boating, and fishing, but

currently these uses have decreased.

The water quality in Roebuck Lake is degrading because of the inflow of pollutants from

cropland fields. Drainage from approximately

8,100 acres of delta cropland flows into the lake,

leaving deposits of silt, pesticides, and fertilizer

and other plant nutrients. Erosion occurring from

these erodible cropland acres is excessive, at an

average rate of 8 tons per acre. Based on available

data, the lake was designated in the state’s 305(b)

water quality report as only partially supporting its

fish and wildlife classification because of agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution.

Installing slotted-board risers

 A number of partners came together to address

these concerns: the Mississippi Department of

Environmental Quality; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service;

Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation Commission; Environmental Protection Agency; and

Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service. The

project included installing grade-stabilization

structures called slotted-board risers (SBRs) on a

selected cotton farm site. The practice involves

placing a pipe at the edge of the field just after

harvesting, with slotted boards placed in front of

the pipe, and allowing the field to flood. Valuable

topsoil and expensive nutrients are retained on the

field, allowing them to be used during the next

growing season

Significant reductions

During the winters of 1997 and 1998, automated

storm water monitoring equipment was used to

calculate the loading reductions resulting from

the use of the SBRs. Because most of the rainfall

runoff was contained on-site and did not produce a discharge, reduction percentages were

high. Most of the trapped rainwater evaporated

or was absorbed into the soil. The results included reductions of 99.8 percent total suspended solids, 89.4 percent total organic carbon,

100 percent total Kjeldahl nitrogen, 90.7 percent

ammonia nitrogen, 96.3 percent nitrate/nitrite,

and 97.1 percent total phosphorus. Overall, the

grade stabilization structures are saving 4,950

tons of topsoil per year.

The SBR practice continues to prove that it is

a very cost-effective approach to saving topsoil

while at the same time improving the lake’s water

quality. Many farmers have installed SBRs on

Mississippi
85

their fields since the project was initiated. It is still

too early to determine what long-term effects

these best management practices (BMPs) will have

on Roebuck Lake’s water quality. It is hoped that

through this demonstration and through subseThe Mississippi Delta of Missouri encompasses

about 4,000 square miles, or 2.5 million acres, of

prime agricultural land. Forests and swamps originally covered this region, but it has become intensively developed for agricultural production.

The Mississippi Delta 319 Irrigation Water

Management Project was implemented in 1995

with the goal of maintaining and enhancing

Missouri’s portion of the Mississippi Delta alluvial

aquifer. The project area and demonstration activities occurred within the 700,000 acres of irrigated

lands in the Delta. The management complexities

of the intensively irrigated lands in the project

emphasize the need in the region for comprehensive nutrient and pesticide management plans and

maximum-efficiency water delivery systems.

Targeting irrigation system efficiency

The project involved field-scale demonstrations of

three best management practices (BMPs) targeting

the improvement of irrigation system efficiency:

• Side-inlet flood irrigation of rice, which

allows water to be applied to each basin

Mississippi Delta Irrigation Water Management Project:

Irrigation Efficiency Improved

Six counties in the Missouri Bootheel

MISSOURI

Contacts:

Steve Welker

RC&D Coordinator

steve.welker@mo.usda.gov

John Hester

Team Leader

Bootheel Resource Conservation

and Development Council, Inc.

18450 Ridgeview Lane

Dexter, MO 63841

573-624-5939

john.hester@mo.usda.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (crop fields)

• poor irrigation efficiency

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• pesticides

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• pesticides

Results:

• 20 percent to 50 percent

water savings

• reduction in agricultural

chemicals entering

groundwater and

surface water

independent of the water levels in other

basins. Water is delivered to each basin

through a pipeline or an irrigation canal.

The system can be set so that all basins fill

at the same time.

• Surge-furrow irrigation for crops, which is

used to improve the uniformity of water

entering the soil down a row in a furrow

irrigation system. Water is introduced to

one area of the irrigated field for a certain

duration, then switched to a different irrigated area, then returned to the original

area. Surge valves automatically switch the

irrigation water. Switching back and forth is

continued until the entire length of the

furrow is watered. By pulsing, or surging,

the water advances down the furrow faster

than it would with the constant flow in a

conventional furrow irrigation system. By

decreasing the time needed to advance to

the end of the furrow, deep percolation is

reduced. This is particularly true in coarsetextured soils.

quent field days, farmers and the public will take

what they have learned and apply it to their lands.

If this occurs, it is possible that Roebuck Lake

could once again support its fish and wildlife

designated use.

www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/wpcnpsmp.htm

Missouri
86

• Furrow flow rate uniformity improvements

for row crops, which will enable furrow

irrigation systems using lay-flat irrigation

tubing to apply water uniformly to individual furrows as needed. In this recently

developed technology, a computer program

calculates the needed gradient of the crown

end of a field to match energy losses within

the pipeline to equalize furrow flow streams.

The program selects hole sizes to help make

existing systems operate more efficiently.

Uniform furrow flow streams result in water

conservation (from 1 to 10 inches per acre

per year), reduced potential of surface water

contamination through reduced irrigation

tail water (from 1 to 6 inches per acre per

year), and increased yields. Roughly 200,000

acres could be furrow-irrigated each year

using the lay-flat irrigation tubing system.

Improving the efficiency of irrigation systems would reduce water loss due to deep percolation and runoff. Consequently, it would reduce the

amount of water and agricultural chemicals entering groundwater and surface draining systems.

The three methods to be demonstrated were

relatively unknown to Missouri farmers. The benefits of the side-inlet and surge-irrigation methods

are well documented, and both methods are commonly used in other irrigated areas of the United

States. The furrow flow uniformity improvement

demonstration used technology recently developed

in Missouri. It is especially important to southeast

Missouri irrigators because it pertains to the use of

lay-flat irrigation tubing. A higher percentage of

southeast Missouri irrigators use lay-flat tubing than

irrigators in any other irrigated area of the country.

Water savings and simpler management

For the eight side-inlet rice irrigation sites installed,

the composite water savings consistently ranged

from 30 percent to 50 percent on the fields. Another benefit of the side-inlet system expressed by

producers was the simpler management. The producers believed that with side-inlet irrigation they

experienced less wear on their levees, used fewer

gates, did not have to adjust gates, and did not have

to guess when to end their irrigation. Consequently,

they had more time to take better care of their

fields. Even without the water savings, producers

felt the management aspect of the side inlet made

it worthwhile to install.

For the six surge-valve/furrow-flow irrigation

improvement sites, the surge systems averaged

between 20 percent and 30 percent reduction in

water use per irrigation, depending on soil type and

system flow rate. The producers indicated they

could also see a definite reduction in the pump

times on their fields using the irrigation water

management plans. In addition, they saw even

application of water across their field as a benefit.

In the case of soybeans, some farmers noted they

did not see the damage that had previously occurred in oversaturated portions of their fields.

This project was also successful in transferring information after the completion of the

demonstrations. At the time the project was proposed, there were few, if any, known producers in

southeast Missouri using the side-inlet method of

irrigating rice, as well as very limited use of

surge/furrow-flow improvement systems. As of

2000 it is estimated that 20,000 to 30,000 acres of

rice are being irrigated using the side-inlet

method. Since the project’s inception, an estimated 80,000 acres of irrigation water management have been put into practice, including 20,000

to 30,000 acres of surge irrigation. By comparison, in 1995 furrow flow improvement plans were

used on fewer than 1,000 acres, surge irrigation

plans were used on fewer than 100 acres, and

there were no side-inlet rice irrigation plans.

Missouri
87

These field-scale demonstrations were critical in establishing credibility among area producers and gaining their acceptance of the applicability of the BMPs. Equally important, the concenUpper Niangua Grazing Demonstration Project:

Counties Unite to Start Demonstration Farms

Webster, Dallas, and Laclede Counties, Missouri

MISSOURI

Contact:

Rita Mueller

Southwest Missouri Resource

Conservation and

Development (RC&D)

283 U.S. Highway 60 West

Republic, MO 65738

417-732-6485

rita.mueller@mo.usda.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (dairy/beef

operations)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• pasture management

practices

• rotational grazing systems

• farmer education

(workshops, manuals)

Results:

• average savings of

$1/cow/day

• reduced labor

• less erosion and nutrientcontaminated runoff

The Upper Niangua watershed encompasses

217,000 acres in Webster, Dallas, and Laclede

Counties in southwest Missouri. Dairy and beef

operations, with an emphasis on forage production, constitute a large component of the agriculture in the watershed. Through support of section

319 funding obtained through Southwest Missouri

Resource Conservation and Development

(RC&D), seven landowners from these three

counties implemented management-intensive

grazing systems to better manage their cattle,

manure, and pastures. The project was funded

from March 1,1994, through December 31, 1999.

The objectives of the Upper Niangua Grazing Demonstration Project included the following:

• Demonstrate best management practices

for pastures and use of animal waste to

prevent nonpoint source pollution.

• Inform local and regional landowners of

the economic and ecological benefits of

proper pasture management.

• Demonstrate riparian corridor protection

as a part of the total farm system.

Implementing resource management systems

Seven livestock/dairy operations were selected to

participate as model sites to demonstrate the

effectiveness of grazing best management practices. Each producer was required to implement a

total resource management system, and incentive

payments were provided for participation.

Management-intensive grazing systems were

installed and customized to each producer’s operation. Management-intensive grazing is a goaldriven approach to grazing management, characterized by balancing animal demand with forage

supply through the grazing season and allocating

available forage based on the animal’s requirements. Underlying the approach is a basic understanding of how soil, water, plants, and animals

interact with each other as influenced by climatic

conditions and management decisions. The four

goals used in implementing a management-intensive grazing plan for each participant included

financial or economic considerations, environmental concerns, lifestyle, and production goals.

Workshops were held at these demonstration

farms in the spring and fall to provide training to

trated efforts of informing and educating producers about the successes of the project ensured

continued use of these practices even after the

project was completed.

www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/wpcnpsmp.htm

Missouri
88

landowners and agency personnel working in the

region. Highlighted were sessions on plant growth,

plant management, soil fertility, species selection,

livestock needs, water development, and other

aspects of the management-intensive grazing

system necessary to derive the economic and

environmental benefits of participating. In addition, monthly Pasture Walks proved to the “Show

Me” Missouri farmers the value of these systems.

 The University of Missouri Extension Service also published a valuable manual for dairy

farmers called the Missouri Grazing

Dairy Manual. The manual covers all

aspects of pasture-based dairying in

Missouri, including managing nutrients

from manure and inorganic sources in

pastures. The manual documents how

the amount of phosphorus added to a

stream when a cow defecates directly

into it—just once—can be the same as

the amount of phosphorus that runs

off an acre of pasture in a single rain

runoff event.

The final chapter in the manual highlights the

economics of the pasture-based dairy. Missouri is

fortunate to have at least 8 months during which

pastures can be grazed. The diversification of

pasture species that results from rotational grazing

provides high-quality forage throughout that long

grazing season. High-quality forages mean greater

milk production, which in turn provides greater

returns to the producer.

Results of pasture management

The producers in this project saved an average of

$1 per cow per day by using pasture management

practices. They also decreased labor because of

the reduced time needed for harvesting forages

and handling waste. This was evident to the landowners from Dallas County. The landowners with

the management-intensive grazing systems were

able to extend their grazing season and wait up to

2 months longer before feeding supplemental hay

than some of their neighbors during an extensive

period of drought.

Through this demonstration project, managed grazing strategies and riparian corridor protection reduced the quantity and improved the

quality of the farmland runoff. As noted in the

dairy manual, dairy cows excrete 70 percent of the

Recipe for Success in Missouri

Ingredient Amount

• Farms Seven

• Cattle Match to forages

• Fencing Enough to split each farm into eight or more

paddocks

• Watering pipe Enough to carry water to all paddocks

• Watering troughs Enough to supply cool, clean water to cattle in

each paddock

• Forages Large variety of dense, palatable, high-quality

grasses and legumes

• Manure Distributed evenly in all paddocks

• Landowners Seven progressive, open-minded farmers

Carefully split each farm into paddocks (pasture subdivisions) with the

fencing. Insert watering troughs into each paddock, and connect them

with pipeline. Keep cattle on one paddock at a time, rotating based on

forage growth and availability. The variety of forages will increase the

longer you cook this mixture. Let it rain on the mixture to moisten

evenly. Ask the seven farmers to open the meal to anyone interested

and share at “Pasture Walk” gatherings and workshops.

Delicious! (And guess what? Everyone wants the recipe!)

Splitting large fields into smaller fields (called paddocks) with

electric fence allows for more efficient use of the pasture,

healthier plants, and more plant diversity.

Missouri
89

nitrogen, 60 percent of the phosphorus, and 80

percent of the potassium they consume in their

diets. In grazing systems, the nutrients that have

been consumed are returned to the pasture

through manure and then taken up again by the

forage. This cycling of nutrients leads to a lower

runoff of nutrients from pasture systems because

fewer nutrients are imported to the pasture by

heavy concentrate, or hay feeding. A greater number of rotations in a grazing system provides for

more evenly distributed manure, so nutrients are

not concentrated in only a few spots.

The demonstration project protected ground

cover and provided more efficient forage production. The manual provided information showing

that forages managed in grazing dairy systems in

Missouri were of very high quality, with an average crude protein content of 21 percent from

April through December. These forages also

furnish vigorous ground cover, which helps reduce erosion and runoff compared to conventionally grazed pastures. Legume growth and reseeding are enhanced because of longer recovery

periods for pastures in a rotation. The legumes

can “fix” nitrogen in the soil so that less nitrogen

needs to be applied to pastures. Water infiltration

is increased because of improved soil structure,

which reduces runoff. In addition, the extensive

root system of healthy forages decreases the

potential for leaching by trapping particles and by

taking up water.

The Upper Niangua Grazing Demonstration

was a success. This demonstration project had

numerous partners: funding was provided by an

Environmental Protection Agency grant through

the Missouri Department of Natural Resources; the

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, University of Missouri Outreach and Extension, Dallas County Soil

and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Laclede

SWCD, Webster SWCD, and Missouri Department

of Conservation provided technical assistance.

The ongoing impact of the project in this

Ozark region of Missouri, known for its clear

lakes and streams, will be felt by all those who

enjoy this area—visitors and residents alike.

Water in every paddock allows for better manure distribution and nutrient

recycling, reduces stress on animals, and reduces erosion.

Missouri
90

Local initiative and voluntary participation contributed to the success of the Careless Creek

Watershed Project. Careless Creek is a 100-milelong tributary to the Musselshell River in central

Montana. Agriculture is the main economic activity and land use in the 500,000-acre watershed.

About a quarter of the land in the stream corridor

is irrigated; the rest is mostly forest and rangeland.

Lower Careless Creek was classified as “moderately to severely impaired” in the 1988 state water

quality assessment. Sediment and salts from return

irrigation flows and other agricultural activities

were the main pollutants. Artificially high summer

flows were causing severe streambank erosion.

Careless Creek Watershed Project:

Sediment Delivery Reduced by 25 Percent

Careless Creek, Montana

MONTANA

Contacts:

Alice Wolff

Lower Musselshell

Conservation District

406-323-2103 (ext. 101)

alice-wolff@mt.nacdnet.org

Carole Mackin

Montana Department of

Environmental Quality

406-444-7425

cmackin@state.mt.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• agricultural BMPs

(including fencing,

rangeland management)

• reduced irrigation

discharges

Results:

• 19 percent increase in

riparian habitat

• 25 percent reduction in

sediment delivery

• fish populations

rebounded

 Broad-based collaboration

Local landowners, working with the Lower

Musselshell Conservation District, began a process

to address local resource concerns. In 1990 a 319-

funded study led to the formation of a local steering committee. The steering committee brought

together a broad coalition of private landowners

and water users; federal, state, and local agencies;

and private organizations to address resource concerns in the watershed. Collaborators include the

Lower Musselshell Conservation District;

Musselshell and Golden Valley County Commissions; U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural

Resources Conservation Service; Deadman’s Basin

Water Users Association; Upper Musselshell Water

Users Association; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation;

Montana Watercourse; Deadman’s Basin Cabin

Owners Association; Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and

Parks Department, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and Department of

Agriculture; local schools; and the Montana Conservation Corps.

The steering committee developed a number

of restoration goals for Careless Creek, including

the following:

• Reduce artificial flows down Careless Creek.

• Reduce streambank and channel erosion on

the lower 7 miles of Careless Creek.

Severe bank cutting and loss of fencing were common on Careless Creek before

streambank restoration.

www.deq.state.mt.us/ppa/nonpoint/NonpointPlan.htm

Montana
91

• Apply voluntary best management practices

(BMPs) in the watershed above Deadman’s

Reservoir.

• Improve native fisheries in the lower watershed.

• Establish weed control plans for the watershed.

• Restore Franklin Lake to a wetland.

Remediation approaches

Local buy-in was crucial to the project’s success.

Complex resource issues, involving water rights

and allocations, had the potential to create conflict

within the community. The watershed committee

emphasized a nonregulatory, collaborative approach that attracted the participation of a majority of landowners and interest groups. Irrigation

discharges to Careless Creek were voluntarily

limited to 100 cubic feet per second. This flow

reduction was made possible by infrastructure

improvements to the water delivery system.

A number of agricultural BMPs were also

implemented, including the installation of 56,000

feet of fencing to manage livestock grazing in critical

areas and the installation of a 15,195-foot pipe and

two tanks to provide off-stream livestock watering.

Measurable results

At the outset the watershed group established a

tracking program to monitor implementation. As

of summer 2000, the project had resulted in the

restoration of 37,000 feet of streambank and a 19

percent increase in riparian habitat. Fifty-four

percent of the stream corridor is no longer eroding. So far, prescribed grazing practices have

improved rangeland management on 18,000 acres.

These restoration activities have reduced

sediment delivery to the Musselshell River by 25

percent.

The comprehensive monitoring plan uses a

combination of water chemistry analyses, biological indicators, and physical habitat evaluations to

measure progress. One indication of progress is

obvious: fish populations have rebounded in the

first 5 years of the project.

Phase II

To further reduce nutrient and sediment delivery in

Careless Creek and the Musselshell River, 319 funds

are being used to restore another 14,632 feet of

degraded streambank by improving livestock waste

systems, moving corrals off the creek, developing

alternative livestock watering systems (solar pumps),

excluding livestock from damaged riparian areas, and

continuing to plant willows and grass. Other contributors are the Montana Renewable Resources

Grant and Loan Program, the Deadman’s Basin

Water Users Association, and the Department of

Natural Resources and Conservation.

Widespread recognition of success

In 1995 the steering committee organized a

“Know Your Watershed” workshop, which

After sloping and revetments, outdoor classes were held and willows were

planted at the site.

Montana
92

marked the beginning of the committee’s outreach

and education program. The project’s bimonthly

newsletter, Careless Creek Country, won a state

award for excellence. Other components of the

outreach program have included outdoor classrooms and watershed tours.

Montana’s governor and the Montana Watershed Coordination Council recognized this collaborative effort last summer with a Montana

Watershed Stewardship Award. In November

2001 the project will receive a CF Industries National Watershed Award.

Restoration in Muddy Creek:

Will a Name Change Be Needed?

Muddy Creek, Montana

MONTANA

Contacts:

Alan Rollo

Sun River Project

406-727-4437

arollo@mcn.net

Jim Bauermeister

Department of

Environmental Quality

406-444-6771

jbauermeister@state.mt.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

• irrigation return flows

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• agricultural BMPs

(including grazing

management)

• reestablishing riparian

vegetation

• increased irrigation

efficiency

Results:

• 75 percent reduced

sediment delivery

• reestablishing habitat

Muddy Creek was aptly named. Until recently, the

small tributary was carrying 200,000 tons of sediment a year into the Sun River west of Great

Falls, Montana. Irrigation return flows were

increasing the normal seasonal stream flow tenfold and scouring a deep, steep-banked gully.

Muddy Creek had the dubious distinction of

being the most polluted stream in Montana. The

creek drains about 314 square miles of farmland,

and agriculture—both livestock grazing and crop

production—was the primary contributor of

nonpoint source pollutants.

Supported by 319 funding, local landowners,

conservation districts, and other partners formed

the Muddy Creek Task Force in 1994. By 1998

the Task Force had achieved three of the four

goals it had established at the outset:

• Goal 1: Reestablish riparian vegetation.

Watershed cooperators improved grazing

management on 8 miles of stream corridor,

installed 44,000 feet of riparian fencing,

established six off-stream livestock watering systems, planted more than 8,000 willows and other trees and shrubs, and reestablished native grasses in riparian and

upland zones.

• Goal 2: Reduce irrigation return flows.

A public education effort that included

brochures, newsletters, a video and slide

show, a project display board, numerous

watershed tours, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation progress reports contributed to a

35 percent reduction in irrigation return

flows. Most of the reduction was achieved

by increasing irrigation efficiency.

• Goal 3: Reduce sediment delivery to the Sun

River and Missouri River.

More than 400 barbs were installed to

reduce bank erosion, and 13 drop structures were built to slow flows and stop

headcutting. Reduced sedimentation is also

a product of the first two goals—reestablishing riparian vegetation and reducing

irrigation flows. The original goal was to

www.deq.state.mt.us/ppa/nonpoint/NonpointPlan.htm

Montana
93

reduce sedimentation by 75 percent in 5

years; the project did it in 4 years.

• Goal 4: Improve fisheries in the Sun River

watershed.

Although it is too soon to adequately document an improved fishery, anglers have

noted that the improved water quality is

allowing fish to migrate back to Muddy

Creek.

And there are other documented improvements—

increased waterfowl and wildlife habitats from

improved riparian areas, reduction of flood potential, reduced cost for maintaining roads and

railroads, and a reduction of land loss by several

landowners along Muddy Creek.

Duplicating success in the Sun River

watershed

The Muddy Creek Task Force’s successes were

contagious. Soon groups were working throughout the Sun River watershed. In 1996 the Sun

River Project received a 319 grant of $198,140 to

continue work on the Muddy Creek Project, complete a comprehensive resource inventory of the

Sun River watershed, and enhance the water quantity and quality of the Sun River. This project

funded stream work on 8,000 feet of Mill Creek,

4,000 feet of the Sun River, and 4,000 feet of

Duck Creek. Supplemental 319 funding from the

1999 Clean Water Action Plan helped fund restoration work on several segments of Elk Creek,

another tributary to the Sun. By 1999 the in-kind

contributions of the various partners had exceeded $2 million.

The Sun River Project is now in its third phase.

A $135,480 section 319 grant is targeted at reducing erosion and irrigation return flows on the Sun

River and its tributaries. The project is continuing

to restore riparian habitat and promote the implementation of best management practices.

Broad-based partnerships

The Sun River Project is known for its broadbased cooperation. Participating entities include

Cascade County, Teton County, and Lewis and

Clark County conservation districts; the Muddy

Creek and Willow Creek task forces; U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.

Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management,

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

Survey; Montana Departments of Environmental

Quality, Natural Resources and Conservation,

Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and Agriculture, and

Bureau of Mines and Geology; Greenfields and

Fort Shaw irrigation districts; Medicine River

Canoe Club, Missouri River Flyfishers, Audubon

Chapter, Russell Country Sportsman Association;

and many others.

The Sun River Project has won numerous

awards, such as the Montana Watershed Coordinating Council’s Watershed Stewardship Award,

Clean Water Action Plan’s Showcase Award, and

CF Industries’ National Watershed Award.

Montana
94

Walnut Creek Lake Project:

Partnership Drives Watershed Protection

Papillion, Nebraska

NEBRASKA

Contact:

Elbert Traylor

Nebraska Department of

Environmental Quality

1200 N Street, Suite 400

Lincoln, NE 68509-8922

402-471-2585

Elbert.Traylor@ndeq.state.ne.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

• construction site runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• sediments

Project Activities:

• erosion control

ordinance

• sediment retention

basins

• streambank stabilization

Results:

• low total phosphorus

concentrations and

sediment delivery

• excellent habitat for

new lake

The Walnut Creek Lake and Recreation Area, near

Papillion, Nebraska, represents a new approach to

reservoir development. Walnut Creek Lake planners, aware that Omaha area lakes suffer from

excess sediment and nutrients, set out to prevent

those problems from the start. The project partners were the Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District, the City of Papillion, Sarpy

County, University of Nebraska Cooperative

Extension, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Game

and Parks Commission, and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

An initial accomplishment was the creation

of a 15-member Clean Lakes Community Council

consisting of area farmers, residents, and other

private citizens. The Council’s mission was to

develop management goals for the lake watershed

that would serve the needs and desires of the

community and protect the lake from polluted

runoff. The Council quickly established itself as

the driving force for the project.

Innovative approaches to protecting watershed

The Walnut Creek watershed was entirely agricultural and enjoyed an unusually high level of land

treatment at the beginning of the project. The

Council and project partners recognized, however,

that creation of a lake would quickly attract residential and commercial development in the watershed and with it the excessive erosion characteristic of land development. To guard against this

threat, the Council drafted a special ordinance for

the lake watershed that requires a high level of

erosion control on construction sites and provides

for higher penalties than usual for violators of the

ordinance. The City of Papillion subsequently

adopted the ordinance within its jurisdiction of

the lake’s watershed. The practices required by the

ordinance provide the first barrier to keep sediment on the development site and out of the lake.

Further protections were built into the design

of the lake itself. The DEQ’s Nonpoint Source

Pollution Management Program provided funding

through section 319 for outreach and installation

of best management practices to reduce sediment

and nutrient runoff into the lake. Islands and

jetties dissipate wave action and prevent shoreline

erosion, and sediment retention basins intercept

sediment before it reaches the lake. Shoreline

plantings stabilize soils, break up wave action, and

provide food and habitat for aquatic organisms.

Pallet stacks, tire reefs, and brush piles placed in

To protect against the high levels of erosion caused

by commercial development around Walnut Creek

Lake, strict erosion control standards were

implemented around the lake.

www.deq.state.ne.us/Priority.nsf/Pages/NNSMP

Nebraska
95

the bottom of the lake provide shelter for fish.

Restrictions prevent boaters from generating

destructive wakes that erode shorelines and disturb aquatic wildlife. The cost of installing these

practices as preventive measures is a fraction of

the cost of installing restorative measures after a

lake has suffered degradation.

Water quality improvements

The goal of the project partners and the Community Council was to create a model lake designed

to resist the pollutant pressures typical in eastern

Nebraska and to meet or exceed its design lifetime. Early water quality data suggest that goal

will be achieved. The initial water transparency of

61 inches is expected to stabilize in the long term

to about 28 inches, well above the average of 22

inches for other area lakes. In-lake total phosphorus concentrations should stabilize at 0.07 milligram per liter (mg/L) from the current 0.05

mg/L; other area lakes average 0.08 mg/L total

phosphorus. Sediment basins and other erosion

controls will limit lake volume loss to 0.27 percent

per year compared to the average 0.85 percent

loss in other area lakes.

High water quality and habitat enhancements

are expected to make Walnut Creek Lake the

premier fishery among the Omaha area lakes. An

added bonus of the project is that it leaves behind

an energized group of watershed residents. The

Clean Lakes Community Council is dedicated to

ensuring that protective measures remain in place

to protect the lake from polluted runoff.

DEQ has adopted a community-based approach to watershed planning for all nonpoint

source priority watersheds, based on the experience

with the Walnut Creek project. Formation of a

Citizen Watershed Council to advise the agency’s

Technical Advisory Committee is a key feature of

the process. A manual is being developed to guide

the project sponsor, Watershed Council, and Technical Advisory Committee through the planning

process. The process is being initiated or implemented in two watersheds where new reservoirs are

being constructed and in six watersheds where

reservoir renovations are planned or under way.

Wellhead Protection in Guide Rock:

Village Closes Abandoned Wells to Protect Water Supply

 Guide Rock, Nebraska

NEBRASKA

Contact:

Jackie Stumpff

Nebraska Department of

Environmental Quality

402-471-3193

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• abandoned wells

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nitrates

Project Activities:

• plugging/capping

abandoned wells

Results:

• closure of 37

abandoned wells

• projected decrease in

nitrate levels

Guide Rock, like many small towns and villages,

recently found itself facing concerns about the

community’s environmental health. The southcentral Nebraska village (1990 population 290)

contacted the Department of Environmental

Quality’s (DEQ) Nebraska Environmental Partnerships (NEP) program to discuss its problems and

concerns. NEP provided Guide Rock with a grant

so the village could complete a community assessment and identify current or potential problems

with its drinking water and wastewater systems.

The primary concern identified by the assessment was high nitrate levels in the village’s public

water wells. The nitrate levels had started to inwww.deq.state.ne.us/Priority.nsf/Pages/NNSMP

Nebraska
96

crease gradually in 1995; by December 1997 they

were above 10 parts per million, the maximum

level of nitrates in drinking water considered safe

for all consumers of the water. In October 1999

nitrate levels were 10.4 ppm and 9.4 ppm in the

village’s two wells.

Source of contamination

Because of concerns about the nitrate levels, the

NEP team assigned to work with Guide Rock discussed the Wellhead Protection Area program with

the village board. (The Wellhead Protection Area

program assists communities and other public water

suppliers in preventing contamination of their water

supplies.) The board asked the DEQ’s Ground

Water Section to proceed with drawing a wellhead

protection area map for Guide Rock’s public water

supply wells. A meeting was held for all village residents to discuss the proposed wellhead protection

area in 1998, and the village board passed an ordinance to designate the protection area.

“The village board is to be commended, as it

has been very supportive of these efforts and has

been active in undertaking preventive activities,”

says M.J. Rose, Nebraska Environmental Partnerships program coordinator. “In particular, the

village board is committed to providing the residents a good public water supply at the least

possible cost to residents.”

Staff of the Wellhead Protection Program

identified abandoned wells as a probable major

source of the contamination of Guide Rock’s water

supply wells and recommended closing any unused

wells in the community and the wellhead protection

area. Correctly plugging and capping abandoned

wells can eliminate the risk of contamination of the

groundwater aquifer. In April 1999 the village

board contacted the Lower Republican Natural

Resources District (NRD) regarding the District’s

abandoned wells program, which provides up to 60

percent of the cost of properly closing a well.

The village board then sought assistance from

NEP for possible funding sources to assist in

closing wells. NEP helped the community secure a

section 319 Small Projects Assistance grant to

develop a promotion campaign and pay the remaining 40 percent of closure costs. These two

funding sources enabled the village to pursue the

proper closing of abandoned wells at no cost to

Guide Rock’s residents.

Successful enrollment in abandoned well

program

Village board members and the village clerk conducted a survey of properties in Guide Rock and

the wellhead protection area to locate abandoned

wells. Residents were given information about the

abandoned well program and were encouraged to

attend a September 1999 public meeting to discuss the program. The Lower Republican NRD,

DEQ, and a local well driller presented information at the meeting. Residents had the opportunity

to ask questions and to sign up for the program.

Thirty-seven wells were signed up and have since

been closed through the program.

“Guide Rock’s drinking water supply will be

much safer,” says Rose. “Numerous potential

sources of contamination have been eliminated.

I’m glad that Nebraska Environmental Partnerships was able to assist in this process. Since there

are additional abandoned wells in the village in

need of proper closing, I hope that this initial

success will encourage citizens to volunteer other

wells for the program in the future.”

Nebraska
97

Martin Slough Water Quality Enhancement Project:

Water Quality Improves in the Upper Carson River Basin

Upper Carson River Basin, Nevada

NEVADA

Contact:

Mary Kay Riedl

Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection

Nonpoint Source

Management Program

775-687-4670 (ext. 3096)

mriedl@ndep.carson-city.nv.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urbanization

• agriculture

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• fecal coliform bacteria

• suspended solids

• metals

Project Activities:

• constructed wetland

ponds

• realignment of slough

downstream

• riparian restoration

Results:

• reductions in fecal

coliform bacteria,

phosphorus, ammonia,

and heavy metals

• improved wildlife

habitat

The Carson River in

Western Nevada is a

river in trouble. Natural phenomena like

drought and flooding

and human activities

such as agriculture

(irrigation return flows

and livestock grazing),

hydrologic modification (water diversion and channelization by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers during the 1960s), habitat modification (removal of riparian vegetation),

and urban runoff have contributed to degraded

water quality, beneficial use impairment, and highly

unstable, easily erodible banks. The river is listed on

Nevada’s 303(d) list for total phosphorus, suspended sediment, turbidity, and several metals.

During the recent high water years of 1995 and

1997, hundreds of acres of land along the river

were washed away. Not only were valuable land and

riparian habitat lost, but the eroded material also

degraded fish habitat downstream.

The towns of Minden and Gardnerville are

located side-by-side in the heart of Carson Valley,

Nevada, where ranching and associated irrigated

agriculture dominate land use. The East and West

Forks of the Carson River meet in the southern

portion of the valley to form the main stem of

the river. Scenic vistas surround the area: the

Carson Range of the Sierra Nevada Mountains

rises to the west, and the Pinenut Mountains

border the eastern side of the valley. Through a

public outreach process, Minden and Gardnerville

have identified the Martin Slough as an important

amenity to their communities.

The Martin Slough is a partially man-made

waterway that flows through both communities

before it joins the East Fork of the Carson River.

Historically the slough was used to deliver irrigation water and collect return flow. However,

because of rapid urbanization over the past

decade, the Martin Slough has also become a

conduit for increased amounts of urban runoff.

Water quality monitoring has shown elevated

levels of nutrients, fecal coliforms, suspended

solids, and metals.

Joining forces to arrest runoff

In 1995 Minden and Gardnerville joined with the

Douglas County Water Conveyance Advisory

Committee, Douglas County School District, and

local landowners to develop a plan to improve

water quality, restore wetland and wildlife habitat,

provide for ground water recharge and storm

water storage and treatment, provide for public

education, and preserve an open-space corridor

through both communities.

The entire project consists of six phases.

During Phase 1 of the project, completed in

In 1999 the pond at Gilman Avenue crossing was

unhealthy and visually unappealing.

Nevada

http://ndwr.state.nv.us
98

September 1999, two wetland ponds were constructed in the upper slough to provide for water

treatment and sediment capture. Phase 2 was

completed in April 2000 and consisted of realigning the slough downstream of Phase 1 and installing a trash rack and diversion structure. Phase 3

was completed in December 2000 and consisted

of riparian restoration through planting of native

trees and shrubs to provide for cooler water temperatures and further enhance wildlife habitat. In

addition, an access road to provide for maintenance, water quality sampling, and flow monitoring was constructed. A flow-measuring device

was installed downstream of the ponds.

Continued water quality improvement

Water quality monitoring sites were established

upstream and downstream of the constructed

wetland ponds. Preconstruction samples were

collected from April through September 1999 to

establish a baseline from which to measure the

effectiveness of the project. Postconstruction

sampling began in October 1999, and it is expected to continue for at least 10 years.

Current preliminary data suggest improved

water quality and reductions in the levels of fecal

coliform bacteria, phosphorus, ammonia, and

heavy metals. Other immediate results of the

project have been an increase in wildlife such as

muskrat and deer in the area and a variety of

birds, including herons, geese, ducks, blackbirds,

and swallows. As indicated in the photo of the

completed project, the results are aesthetically

pleasing. Future phases will occur in the town of

Minden and include plans for public parks, bike

trails, bank stabilization, riparian restoration, and

wildlife habitat enhancement.

Funding to date for Phases 1 and 2 includes

$45,000 of section 319(h) funds and $86,745 in

local matching funds.

The restoration project improved water quality,

created wildlife habitat, and enhanced the visual

appeal of the pond.

Middle Carson River Restoration Project:

Bioengineering Used to Restore Unstable Banks

Middle Carson River, Nevada

NEVADA

Contact:

Jean Stone

Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection

Nonpoint Source

Management Program

775-687-4670 (ext. 3090)

jstone@ndep.carson-city.nv.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• unstable stream banks

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• bank stabilization

through vegetative

treatment and redirection

of flow away from

unstable banks

Results:

• 74 percent average

cover on all vegetative

treatments

• 35 percent regeneration

of willow clumps

In 1995 a group of ranchers and other concerned

local citizens living along the Middle Carson River

near Dayton, Nevada, formed the Middle Carson

River Coordinated Resource Management Planning Committee to find ways to manage and

restore the river. The effort was spearheaded by

the Dayton Valley Conservation District (DVCD),

with the support and cooperation of numerous

Nevada

http://ndwr.state.nv.us
99

community groups and agencies, including the

Carson Water Subconservancy District, Western

Nevada Resource Conservation and Development, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

and Lyon County. In 1996 the DVCD hired Kevin

Piper as watershed coordinator.

The strength of the Middle Carson group is

their ability to work together to implement “on-theground” projects. Under Piper’s leadership, several

bank stabilization projects have been completed,

and the group supports education and outreach

programs in coordination with local schools.

Restoring streambanks with bioengineering

Bioengineering, which uses vegetative techniques in

addition to “hard” structures such as riprap, is the

cornerstone of the bank restoration projects. Work

began on the Glancy property near Dayton in 1998,

with the construction of five stream barbs to redirect flow away from the unstable banks. The quiescent areas behind the structures collect sediment

and allow natural regeneration of native vegetation.

Several vegetative treatments, including brush

mattress layering, brush trenches, juniper revetments, willow clump planting, and seeding, were

used to provide bank stability, reduce erosion, trap

sediment, provide shading, encourage natural plant

growth, and restore wildlife habitat.

Monitoring to document improvements

A long-term monitoring program is being implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of the best

management practices. Activities include aerial

photography; annual survey of channel cross

sections to determine the degree of accretion/

degradation; monitoring of vegetation growth to

assess changes in habitat; analysis of soil characteristics to document particle size, erodibility, and

sediment transport potential; and hydraulic modeling to determine water surface elevations at

specific recurrence intervals.

Monitoring conducted 9 months after project

completion showed an average of 74 percent cover

on all vegetative treatments, with about 35 percent

regeneration of the willow clumps. A topographical

survey indicated deposition of about 430 cubic

yards of sediment between the stream barbs. Although sediment buried the lower half of many of

the vegetative treatments, it provided a medium for

natural cottonwood seeding. Channel cross sections

showed that the low-flow channel has moved away

from the bendway, suggesting the stream barbs are

functioning as designed to deflect higher stream

flow away from the bank.

As part of the public education component,

bimonthly water quality monitoring of the Middle

Carson River is conducted with the help of the

River Wranglers. This volunteer group, coordinated by Lyon County teacher Linda Conlin,

works with local schools to educate students

about river and lake ecology. Students measure

dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity in the field.

Macroinvertebrate samples are collected and

transported back to school, where students identify the number of mayflies, caddisflies, stoneflies,

worms, and other aquatic organisms.

In July 2000 Kevin Piper and the Middle

Carson River Coordinated Resource Management

Group received the Wendell McCurry Excellence

in Water Quality Award. The Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection established this award

to recognize individuals, firms, organizations, and

governmental entities that have made significant

contributions to improving the quality of

Nevada’s water resources.

Funding to date includes approximately

$30,000 of section 319(h) funds and $30,000 in

local matching funds.

Nevada
100

Chocorua Lake Project:

BMPs Reduce Phosphorus by 82 Percent

Carroll County, New Hampshire

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Contact:

Rick DeMark

North County RC&D Area

Council

719 North Main Street

Room 220

Laconia, NH 03246-2772

603-527-2093

rdemark@nh.usda.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban storm water runoff

• eroded ditches

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• phosphorus

• sediment

Project Activities:

• installed system of berms

• swales

• settling and filtering

basins

Results:

• 82 percent reduction in

phosphorus

The Chocorua Lake Association (CLA) has been

monitoring Chocorua Lake for more than 20

years. Recent trends showing declining water

clarity prompted the CLA to request designation

of the watershed as “Category I,” a priority

waterbody in need of restoration. Working with

the Carroll County Conservation District, the

North Country Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc., and Natural Resources

Conservation Service, a 319 project was developed and the New Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services awarded grant funds in

April 2000.

The Chocorua Lake watershed is 13.2 square

miles in extent and well protected except for a few

vulnerable areas. The U.S. Forest Service manages

the south side of Mount Chocorua as a scenic

view area. This management decision helped

maintain more than half of the watershed as

uncut forest. As a result of work begun in 1969 by

the Chocorua Lake Conservation Foundation,

about 95 percent of the land in the watershed is

protected by conservation easements written into

the property deeds of about 60 landowners. These

easements have preserved woodland buffers all

around the lake, except for a portion of the Route

16 highway corridor. The easements also require

setbacks for housing and septic systems, beyond

state regulation, and low-density housing. North

of the lake are conservation lands owned by The

Nature Conservancy and the Chocorua Lake

Conservation Foundation. There are also several

large wetlands in the watershed that act as natural

filters to help treat the water before it enters the

lake. Although the lake is protected in most areas

of its watershed, it is a fragile lake. It has a maximum depth of 29 feet and an average depth of 12

feet. Because the lake is so shallow, sunlight

reaches most of the water column. Even low

concentrations of nutrients are readily available to

algae and other plant life.

The CLA participates in the University of

New Hampshire’s Lakes Lay Monitoring Program,

which determined that 15 percent of phosphorus

input to the lake was coming from direct runoff

from Route 16, a heavily traveled tourist road

adjacent to the lake. Watershed surveys found

several eroded ditches adjacent to Route 16 and

across land providing beach access to the lake

owned by the Chocorua Lake Conservation Foundation and the Town of Tamworth. In addition to

the water quality problems, the CLA was interested in addressing traffic safety and noise problems caused by the highway.

Route 16 has grown enormously since it began

as a dirt road next to the lake in the 1890s. In the

early 1900s the road was tarred but left very close

to the lake. In the 1950s the road was widened,

straightened, and moved slightly away from the

lake; however, Route 16 still runs close to the lake

New Hampshire

www.des.state.nh.us/waterdiv.htm
101

for about 1 mile. The width and length of this

impermeable surface next to the lake play a doubly

negative role. First, the road’s surface collects

particulates from partially burned gas and diesel

fuel, oil, and sand and salt. These residues typically

contain high amounts of phosphorus, which are

diluted and flushed into the lake. Second, during

spring runoff and storm events, runoff from the

impermeable surface creates surges of water,

which flow to the ditches and culverts. High volumes and velocities of runoff scour the soil, adding to the phosphorus loading of the lake. Neither

the highway residues nor the eroded soils have time

to settle and filter before entering the lake.

The groups mentioned previously, along with

the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Town of Tamworth, initiated

the “Berms and Swales Project.” The best management practices (BMPs) installed include a system

of berms, swales, and settling and filtering basins

to control runoff, improve safety, and reduce noise.

BMP performance

Installation of the BMPs was completed on September 5, 2000. Since then the BMPs have been

performing to design specifications. Water quality

monitoring has shown an 82 percent reduction in

phosphorus entering the lake. The CLA continues

to monitor the BMPs, and the project team is now

beginning Phase II of the Chocorua Lake project,

which will address additional phosphorus sources

in the watershed. The success of the project is

mainly the result of the resources and energy

brought to it by the numerous project partners.

The project team hopes to formalize one aspect

of the project in a Memorandum of Agreement

drafted between the CLA and the New Hampshire DOT. The CLA will inspect the BMPs and

report on their condition annually to DOT so that

long-term maintenance can be planned. DOT will

invite CLA’s participation in planning future highway improvements in the Chocorua Lake watershed.

Lake Opechee Watershed Project:

City-State Partnership Takes on Multiple Pollutants

Laconia, New Hampshire

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Contact:

Amanda Simpson

Director

Planning and Community

Development

City of Laconia

45 Beacon Street, E

Laconia, NH 03246

603-527-1264

simpsona@city.laconia.nh.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban storm water runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• salt

• phosphorus

• oil and grease

• heavy metals

• bacteria

• nitrogen

Project Activities:

• bioengineered wetland

• redesigned boat-launch

ramps

• vegetated buffers

• sediment basins

• regraded surface away

from lake

Results:

• reduced sediment

• monitoring in progress

Lake Opechee has a very high use and visibility in

the city of Laconia. The watershed is one of the

city’s smallest but most urbanized watersheds,

with the heavily developed Lakeport and Union

Avenue to the southeast, the fringes of downtown

to the south, and residential development surrounding most of the westerly, northern, and

easterly sides of the lake. The city’s principal

beach and recreation complex, Opechee Park, is

located on the south westerly shore of this water

body, and one of the city’s best public beaches,

Bond Beach, is located on its northeasterly shore.

New Hampshire

www.des.state.nh.us/waterdiv.htm
102

Lake Opechee suffered from multiple

nonpoint sources of pollution related to the use

of land in the public domain. Opechee Cove is a

particularly sensitive area in the lake because very

little exchange or flushing takes place. Storm

water discharge from adjacent streets, as well as

several boat launching ramps around Lake

Opechee, had been identified as contributing

significant sediment and urban runoff to the lake.

The city’s uncovered sand and salt storage facility,

as well as a nearby private parcel used as a snow

dump site, were also significant contributors of

pollutants to Lake Opechee.

These sources were determined to contribute

significant pollutant loads to the lake and the

connecting Winnipesaukee River system, including

salt, fertilizer, phosphorus, sediment, and the wide

gamut of pollutants contained in urban runoff,

such as oil and grease, heavy metals, bacteria,

phosphorus, and nitrogen. In addition, boat trailers would become mired in the ramps, which had

inadequate base preparation, thus stirring up large

quantities of bottom sediment.

Multifaceted project

To address these issues, in 1996 the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

initiated a 3-year project with the City of Laconia.

To provide overland treatment before storm water

entered the lake, the city implemented diversion

and swale improvements, creating a 0.5-acre wetland in Opechee Cove to treat and settle out

pollutants before the storm water entered the lake.

The city also wanted to prevent run off and sediment from leaving the boat-launching ramps and

discharging into the lake. To accomplish this, the

city selected two boat-launching ramps to test the

construction and maintenance of innovative best

management practices (BMPs). The city installed a

prefabricated mat and cellular block system as

part of each ramp. Vegetated swales and diversions were also installed along the lake edge of the

boat-launching parking lot to prevent runoff from

discharging directly into the lake.

To prevent the direct overland flow of sand

and salt from the public works yard to the lake,

the city installed a vegetated buffer strip along the

shore, regraded the public works yard surface

away from the lake, installed a sediment basin to

trap salt brine and sediment from the work bays,

and guttered all building outlets to a newly installed catch basin. To prevent runoff of salt- and

sediment-laden snowmelt from directly entering

Lake Opechee, the city constructed a berm with a

25-foot setback from the lake and regraded the

site such that runoff flows away from the lake at

the city’s snow storage facility. The city also constructed a 150-foot-long sediment basin along the

toe of the berm to trap any sediment before it

was discharged into the lake.

Successful as project and as learning

experience

Officials from the City of Laconia expressed that

this project has been a great learning experience

for them, from the design issues to the construction and maintenance of each BMP. The project

involved five different city departments working

together to meet the water quality goals. The

design and implementation process raised the

city’s awareness of the water quality and land use

issues that face the community. The city has also

expressed how pleased it is with the physical

outcomes of the project, including the

bioengineered wetland in Opechee Cove and the

resulting modern boat ramps.

New Hampshire
103

Restoration of Strawbridge Lake:

 Volunteers Assist in Stabilizing Shoreline and Constructing Wetlands

Moorestown (Burlington County), New Jersey

NEW JERSEY

Contact:

Christopher Obropta

Omni Environmental

Corporation

Research Park

321 Wall Street

Princeton, NJ 08540-1515

609-924-8821 (ext. 17)

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• phosphorus

Project Activities:

• streambank restoration

• construction of biofilter

wetlands

Results:

• more than 4,000 feet of

streambank stabilized

• monitoring in progress

The Strawbridge Lake

watershed comprises

12.6 square miles and

encompasses portions

of Moorestown,

Mount Laurel, and

Evesham Townships.

Strawbridge Lake is

surrounded by a park

widely used by residents of Burlington and Camden Counties for

activities like walking, biking, picnicking, fishing,

and ice-skating. In addition to having a highly

eroded shoreline, the lake receives numerous storm

water discharges from the surrounding residential

and commercial areas, as well as directly from State

Route 38.

The lake itself has been listed by the New

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

(NJDEP) as a water quality-limited water body.

Sedimentation, elevated phosphorus, heavy macrophyte growth, and chlordane in fish tissue were

identified as the water quality impairments at

Strawbridge Lake.

Multiagency cooperation

NJDEP’s NPS Grant Program provided 319

funding to help restore Strawbridge Lake in

Moorestown, Burlington County. Additional

funds were secured from the Township of

Moorestown and the Eastgate Mitigation Fund,

under the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Natural

Lands Trust. Other cooperating entities included Omni Environmental Corporation and

the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. In addition

to the local schools, volunteers from

AmeriCorps, Save the Environment of

Moorestown (STEM), Moorestown Environmental Advisory Committee, and Strawbridge

Lake Association assisted with the rehabilitation.

Because of the efforts of these volunteers,

about 80 percent of the 319 grant funds resulted in on-the-ground improvements.

More than 4,000 feet of eroding shoreline

were stabilized using soil bioengineering techniques, which created a vegetative buffer, along

with a “no mowing zone,” along the lake’s edge.

The buffer ranged in width from 10 to 20 feet.

Easy access areas, which were interspersed

throughout the project, were created along the

shoreline using red gravel bordered by large, flat

stones. A total of 240 linear feet of shoreline was

treated in this manner.

In addition to the shoreline restoration,

biofilter wetlands (pocket wetlands) were constructed in the park area to treat seven storm water

discharges into the lake. Four outfall structures

were discharged into two pocket wetlands retrofitted to filter pollutants from the storm water. The

last of these pocket wetlands was completed in

A coconut fiber roll and soil erosion blanket

protected the bank until vegetation was

established.

New Jersey

www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/nps_program.htm
104

November 1999. Three of the discharges to the

wetlands were retrofitted with sedimentation chambers to remove coarse sediment from the runoff

from Route 38 before discharging the runoff to the

lake. Volunteers participated in planting the

biofilter wetland and installing the shoreline stabilization and vegetative buffer.

The Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Restoration Project:

Streamwatch Volunteers Monitor Success of Restoration Efforts

Mercer, Middlesex, Hunterdon, Somerset, and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey

NEW JERSEY

Contact:

Steven Yergeau

Stony-Brook-Millstone

Watershed Association

31 Titus Mill Road

Pennington, NJ 08534

609-737-3735

syergeau@thewatershed.org

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• streambank restoration

(bioengineering

techniques and

reforestation)

Results:

• more than 800 linear feet

of streambank restored

• more than 10 acres of

land reforested

• improved stream habitat

• monitoring in progress

Large-scale development is occurring at an accelerated rate in New Jersey’s Stony Brook-Millstone

watershed. As a result, runoff is passing over

more areas of impervious surfaces. The increased

flows during rain events are scouring streambanks,

contributing sediment downstream, which clogs

New Jersey’s waterways, chokes aquatic life, and

restricts plant growth by blocking sunlight.

Recognizing the impacts of urbanization in

their watershed, the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association (SBMWA) developed a 4-year

project that involves general watershed restoration

and reforestation projects with the main goal of

stabilizing streambanks for erosion and sediment

pollution control on various tributaries in the

Stony Brook-Millstone watershed. The key to the

SBMWA’s current success is stakeholder and

citizen involvement.

Three major activites

The project primarily focused on three activities

to protect stream corridors: streambank restoration, bioengineering techniques, and reforestation.

Training sessions in bioengineering and reforestation methods were offered to the public. The

SBMWA also identified and convened stakeholders to ensure the success of the project. To determine whether the projects were successful,

StreamWatch, SBWMA’s volunteer monitoring

program, will monitor the water quality at the

restoration sites. StreamWatch volunteers chemically, biologically, and visually assess the environmental health of streams.

SBMWA also held educational sessions on

what makes a stream healthy, the value of riparian

corridors, and the role of trees in maintaining a

healthy ecosystem. After this project, data gathered from Stream Watch will be evaluated and

compared with previously collected data to determine the effectiveness of all these efforts.

Exciting results

From 1997 to 2000, more than 800 linear feet of

streambank was restored, some 1,000 square feet

A model project

The Strawbridge Lake project is believed to be a

great success. Other communities have used this

project as a model. The project not only has enhanced the natural beauty of the lake and the surrounding park area for future generations but also has

significantly improved the water quality of the lake.

New Jersey

www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/nps_program.htm
105

of lakeside hydric soils were planted, and 10.4

acres of land was reforested. The long-term educational benefits to the more than 1,200 volunteers who have participated in these efforts have

been tremendous. Many groups return year after

year to contribute to the project’s success, as well

as to observe days like Arbor Day, Earth Day, and

Make a Difference Day.

With 2 years left on the project, the

SBMWA is very excited about the success of

Lower Bitter Creek Restoration Project:

Sediment Loads Reduced by Implementing BMPs

Taos County, New Mexico

NEW MEXICO

Contact:

Michael W. Coleman

New Mexico Environment

Department

P.O. Box 26110

Santa Fe, NM 87502

505-827-0505

michael_coleman@

nmenv.state.nm.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• degraded stream channel

conditions

• road construction

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• road drainage

improvements/outlets

• construction of sediment

retention basins

Results:

• reduced sediment

delivery

• improved turbidity

readings

Bitter Creek is a perennial-to-intermittent stream

that flows into the Red River, a major tributary of

the upper Rio Grande system, in northern Taos

County, New Mexico. The Bitter Creek

subwatershed is immediately northeast of the

town of Red River. Nonpoint source pollution,

primarily from heavy sediment delivery, was identified as a significant contributor to water quality

impairment of the Red River.

An interagency cooperative pollution prevention project was initiated with the Carson National

Forest (CNF) Supervisor’s Office, the Questa

Ranger District (QRD), and the Town of Red

River, with participation from local watershed

residents. The project was designed to improve

degraded stream channel conditions, correct road

construction and maintenance practices, remedy

illegal refuse disposal, and arrest the rapidly developing headcut impacts. The project also attempted

to address the area’s altered and mineralized volcanic geology input by mitigating the effects of

unchecked erosion from a landslide/debris flow

system overlooking the local Forest Service road

and the Bitter Creek channel.

Arresting impacts of sediment delivery

through BMPs

A number of best management practices (BMPs)

were designed to reduce the impacts of turbidity

and sediment delivery (with potential for heavy

metal loading) in the watershed. A series of road

drainage outlets and diversions were constructed

to modify and improve drainage along the local

forest system road. These outlets reduce the tendency for precipitation or snowmelt runoff to be

confined to channelized road segments before

these restorations. Severely eroding banks

were regraded, revegetated, and stabilized to

prevent additional sediment from entering the

waterways. A new forest was planted, creating

habitat and protecting the stream that runs

through the former farm field. More important, volunteers and community representatives feel empowered by their ability to improve their environment.

www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/NPS_Management_Plan-1999.PDF

New Mexico
106

accessing degraded slopes via deep headcuts.

Highly turbid road and headcut runoff is therefore prevented from delivering sediment directly

to Bitter Creek.

In a particularly erodable stream segment

known as “the Logjam,” a set of energy dissipation and sediment aggradation measures have

provided streambank and bed stability. The Town

of Red River also constructed a series of inchannel sediment retention basins to slow flow,

settle out suspended sediment, and allow channel

bottom and floodplain aggradation. This approach aids in the development of a riparian plant

community, creating an improved local habitat.

At the suggestion of the local residents, a

sediment and runoff retention basin was constructed in the Bitter Creek Debris Flow. The

Debris Flow is a surface feature formed by the

Bitter Creek Turbidity Sampling Before BMP Installation

Location Date Turbidity Remarks

At Red River conflluence 9/13/1988 110 NTU

At Red River conflluence 4/29/1992 125 NTU

Upper Bitter Creek 7/24/1992 1.33 NTU Headwaters

Above Two Lakes 8/31/1994 24.7 NTU Turbidity measured above Two Lakes and

debris flow reach

Above Red River 8/31/1994 1,000 NTU Heavy rain event and runoff mobilizing

abundant sediment

Below gravel pits 4/6/1999 21.7 NTU

Below Logjam 4/22/1999 19.5 NTU

At Red River culvert 4/22/1999 42 NTU Turbidity sampled during local gravel

sorting/hauling activities

Above Red River confluence 5/10/1999 231 NTU Spring 1999 TMDL

Above Red River confluence 5/11/1999 85.2 NTU Spring 1999 TMDL

Above Red River confluence 5/12/1999 40.3 NTU Spring 1999 TMDL

Above Red River confluence 5/13/1999 48.3 NTU Spring 1999 TMDL

Project Implementation Begins to Show Effects

Location Date Turbidity Remarks

Below Scar Creek 5/21/1999 15.1 NTU High flow (bankfull conditions thru Town of RR)

At Logjam 5/21/1999 16.8 NTU High flow (bankfull conditions thru Town of RR)

At Red River confluence 5/21/1999 112.5 NTU High flows mobilize sediment from gravel pits

(clean upstream)

Above Logjam 5/26/1999 12 NTU Low flow conditions resumed

Above gravel pits 5/26/1999 13 NTU

Below gravel pits 5/26/1999 24.7 NTU Gravel operations continue to impact

stream flow

Above Red River confluence 8/17/1999 15.5 NTU Summer 1999 TMDL

Above Red River confluence 8/18/1999 6.91 NTU Summer 1999 TMDL

Above Red River confluence 10/25/1999 15 NTU Fall 1999 TMDL

Above Red River confluence 10/26/1999 15.3 NTU Fall 1999 TMDL

Above Red River confluence 10/27/1999 8.34 NTU Fall 1999 TMDL

Above Red River confluence 10/27/1999 16 NTU Fall 1999 TMDL

Above Town of RR basins 5/21/2000 88.3 NTU Flow entering Town of RR basins from upstream.

Below Town of RR basins 5/21/2000 8.1 NTU Settled base flow exiting sediment basins

Note: RR = Red River; NTU = nephelometric turbidity units

New Mexico
107

Valle Grande Grass Bank Water Quality Improvement Project:

Success Breeds More Success

San Miguel County, New Mexico

NEW MEXICO

Contacts:

Jerry Elson

The Conservation Fund

505-473-0526

jelson1@juno.com

Charles Jankiewicz

USDA Forest Service

Santa Fe National Forest

505-438-7828

cjankiewicz@fs.fed.us

Steven Miranda

Carson National Forest

505-587-2255

smiranda@fs.fed.us

Abe Franklin

New Mexico Environment

Department

505-827-2793

abraham_franklin@nmenv.state.nm.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• grazing

• fire suppression

• roads

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• establishment of public

land grass bank program

• prescribed burning/

thinning

Projected Results:

• reduced erosion

• improved grasslands/

ecological diversity

accumulation of landslide debris running off the

Bitter Creek Scar’s hydrothermally altered volcanic

breccia that forms a high ridge overlooking the

region. The favorable performance of the basin

minimized the effects of outflow and runout for

four large runoff events during 1999–2000, holding back most of the materials that would previously have affected the local road and restricted

access into the Bitter Creek channel. This BMP

implementation effort represents a temporary fix,

and annual maintenance is necessary for this basin

to continue to function. Convincing an agency or

the local residents to take ownership of the BMP

measure remains a target for this 319 project.

This project succeeded in identifying and

mitigating a variety of nonpoint source impacts

and in demonstrating effective approaches that

land management agencies or local residents can

adopt and maintain as they seek to preserve their

environment and minimize the area’s downstream

effects. A series of measures were successfully

implemented to reduce and control runoff from

the roads and slope headcuts. The construction of

in-channel revetments is aimed at long-term reduction of sediment loads from the stream system. Overall, the targeted decrease in turbidity of

the flow that Bitter Creek delivers to its

confluence with the Red River is being realized

(see table). Lasting success at Bitter Creek, the

Red River, and the Upper Rio Grande will require

at least some level of continued monitoring and

maintenance.

www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/NPS_Management_Plan-1999.PDF

Grasslands and meadows in northern New

Mexico have been experiencing continued decline

because of the combined effects of fire suppression and historical grazing. The loss of grass

communities has diminished ecological diversity in

the regional landscape and has contributed directly to high rates of soil erosion and consequent

nonpoint source pollution throughout the region.

It has also eroded the viability of northern New

Mexico’s small-scale Hispanic ranching community, which depends on the use of public lands

throughout the region.

Nearly all of the ecological communities that

support grazing in northern New Mexico depend

on recurrent low-intensity fire to arrest the encroachment of trees and shrubs. It follows that a

New Mexico
108

central challenge in restoring grassland diversity

and productivity is to restore fire to its natural

role in structuring and renewing the regional

landscape. Simply removing cattle from public

lands will not restore environmental diversity and

health because it will not bring the keystone process of fire back into the landscape.

Rise of the grass bank program

In 1996 The Conservation Fund (TCF), with the

assistance of the Forest Service, studied the feasibility of establishing a public land grass bank in

northern New Mexico. In 1997 the study led to the

formation of a steering committee composed of

representatives from the Forest Service, the Cooperative Extension Service, the Northern New

Mexico Stockmen’s Association, and The Conservation Fund. In August 1997 TCF acquired 240

acres of land on Rowe Mesa, south of the town of

Pecos in San Miguel County, renaming it the Valle

Grande Ranch. Purchase of the land qualified TCF

to become the sole grazing permittee of the adjacent 36,000-acre Valle Grande grazing allotment

within the Santa Fe National Forest.

The grass bank program allows participants

(selected by the supervisor of the Santa Fe National Forest based on the steering committee’s

recommendation) to have cattle delivered to the

Valle Grande allotment and placed in the care of a

full-time cowboy and range rider provided by TCF.

By placing their cattle on the grass bank, participating permittees rest their “home” allotments, allowing their pastures, for instance, to grow a crop of

grass that will fuel a prescribed fire. Participation in

the grass bank usually lasts several growing seasons,

allowing desired vegetation to become resilient

following restoration treatments.

The first cattle arrived on the Valle Grande

Grass Bank in March 1998. By mid-summer, the

ranch held 264 cows from four allotments. Gradually, the reputation of the grass bank grew. By January 1999 the steering committee had received applications from seven allotments requesting three times

the amount of grazing than was actually available.

During the summer of 1999, 346 cows and their

calves, belonging to 19 permittees from three allotments, grazed on the Valle Grande Grass Bank.

Land treatment projects: a significant

component

In fiscal year 2000, funding from the 319 program

helped to support a composite of land treatment

projects involving six grazing allotments and five

New Mexico watersheds throughout the Santa Fe

and Carson National Forests. The unifying purpose is to obtain improved grazing management

and ecological restoration that will produce

healthy watersheds and reduce nonpoint sources

across a wide spectrum of northern New Mexico.

Success on these allotments will ensure that permittees on other allotments will want to participate in the Valle Grande Grass Bank program or

similar programs at a future date across a broad

spectrum of watersheds.

Land treatment projects generally involve

burning and thinning to reduce tree and brush

densities and to increase effective vegetation

ground cover, thus reducing soil erosion and offsite sedimentation and turbidity. Grass bank resting is also necessary to ensure maximum fine fuels

prior to burns and to provide rest for establishing

seedlings on projects that involve disturbed soil.

Road projects are also implemented to improve

drainage and appropriate channel crossings, and in

some cases might also include closure. Ultimately,

5,800 acres will be burned; 1,475 acres will be

thinned; 6 miles of fencing will be constructed;

and 5 miles of road will be treated.

New Mexico
109

Keuka Lake Watershed:

Grape Growers Implement Soil Conservation Practices

Yates and Steuben Counties, New York

NEW YORK

Contact:

Lester Travis

District Manager

Yates County Soil and

Water Conservation District

110 Court Street

Penn Yan, NY 14527

315-536-5188

ycswcd@linkny.com

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (animal

operations, vineyards,

croplands)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• revised fertilizer and

pesticide management

practices

• diversion ditches

• buffer strips

• alternative vineyard

layout

Results:

• reduced erosion

• increased crop yields

• decreased applications

of nutrients and

pesticides

The Agricultural Environmental Management

(AEM) Program has put New York State in the

forefront of a national effort to help farmers identify and address agricultural nonpoint source pollution. New York’s AEM Program is a statewide

voluntary, incentive-based program. It provides

cost-sharing and educational/technical assistance

for the development and implementation of agricultural plans that enable farmers to remain good

stewards of the land, maintain economic viability

of the farm operation, and comply with federal,

state, and local regulations relating to water quality

and other environmental concerns. (Refer to special

feature section on Innovative State Programs for more information on New York’s AEM Program.)

The New York Department of Agriculture

and Markets selected Keuka Lake as a pilot watershed to test some of the new Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) concepts developed

under “Whole Farm Planning” efforts under way

elsewhere in the state. Keuka Lake is an outstanding natural and cultural resource, as well as a primary drinking water source for more than 20,000

people. The surrounding watershed, encompassing

99,700 acres of land that drains into the lake, supports a diverse and thriving agricultural community

of about 34,000 acres of dairy/livestock, vegetable/cash crops, grapes, and fruit trees. Vineyards

occupy one-quarter of this acreage. Grape production in the Finger Lakes area directly contributes

$15 million per year to the regional economy, and

associated services and tourism contribute even

more to the local economy.

Soil and water conservation practices for

vineyards

Grape growers have a history of good land stewardship and recognize the benefits of conservation practices for both environmental and economic reasons. Through the AEM program, grape

growers are implementing a number of soil conservation practices to prevent contamination of

lake water by soil, fertilizers, and pesticide residues. Diversion ditches are being constructed to

collect water from slopes and divert it away from

the vineyards and into natural drainageways;

buffer strips are being added around the perimeters of vineyards; and alternative vineyard planting layouts and vineyard floor management options (including no-till seeding of row middles)

are being implemented.

Grape growers are also adjusting their fertilizer and pesticide application practices through

the AEM program. Practices used to manage

fertilizer use with grapes include soil and petiole

(stem) tests (to avoid deficiencies and excesses of

nutrients needed for efficient production) and

split nitrogen applications (with revised timing

New York

www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/index.html
110

Wappingers Creek Watershed:

AEM Program Plays a Vital Role

Dutchess County, New York

NEW YORK

Contact:

Ed Hoxsie

Dutchess County Soil and

Water Conservation District

845-677-8011

ed@nymillbroo.fsc.usda.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (animal

operations, vineyards,

croplands)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• sediment

Project Activities:

• nutrient management

practices

• Integrated Pest

Management

Results:

• riparian protection on

3,000 acres

In 1996 the Dutchess County Soil and Water

Conservation District (SWCD) took the lead in

organizing partners at the local level to initiate the

AEM process in the Wappingers Creek watershed.

Contained entirely within Dutchess County, the

Wappingers Creek watershed drains 134,900 acres

into Wappingers Lake. Some 30,000 acres is agricultural land, consisting of 108 agriculture enter- Peter Coon prepares to power up the primary pumping station to the farm’s new waste storage facility.

Dutchess County SWCD

periods for fertilizer applications). Growers are

also using a variety of techniques under the umbrella of Integrated Pest Management to efficiently use pesticides only when they are economically justified: insect scouting is being conducted,

resulting in revised spray schedules; disease forecasting is helping to define critical periods for

applying fungicides to control diseases; and

canopy management, which reduces shading, is

resulting in better penetration of spray materials

while enhancing the development of desirable

flavors that contribute to wine quality.

Promising results

Soil conservation practices are yielding both environmental and economic benefits for grape growers. The construction of diversion ditches is reducing the amount of water running through vineyards

by up to 80 percent. Using an alternative vineyard

layout—planting vineyards so that the rows run

across the slope rather than up and down the

slope—is reducing erosion by up to 50 percent.

Alternative floor management options, such as

applying straw mulch to row middles, can directly

increase yields by up to 20 percent on some sites.

Efficient use of fertilizer and pesticide inputs

directly improves the bottom line. For a 100-acre

vineyard operation, each spray applied to the

vineyard represents an investment of $2,000 to

$3,000—ample motivation for avoiding “recreational spraying.” Revised spraying practices are

resulting in documented reductions in the average

number of insecticides applied, from three to four

per year in the 1980s to an average of 1.3 per year

in the most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture survey of New York grape growers.

Continued innovation by area growers and

researchers will be a key factor in maintaining the

economic viability of the industry and protecting

soil and water quality in the Keuka Lake watershed.

New York

www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/index.html
111

NORTH CAROLINA

Contacts:

Rodney Johnson

Albemarle RC&D

412 West Queen Street

Edenton, NC 27932

252-482-7437

Kristopher Bass and

Dr. Robert Evans

North Carolina State

University (principal

researchers)

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

• urban runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• constructed wetlands

Results:

• 60 percent reduction in

nitrate nitrogen

• 33 percent reduction in

ammonia nitrogen

• 9.5 percent reduction in

TKN, 20 percent reduction

in total nitrogen

• 55 percent increase in total

phosphorus

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/319updat.pdf

Edenton Storm Water Wetland Project:

Wetland Systems Reduce Nitrogen Concentrations

Chowan and Dare Counties, North Carolina

In northeastern North Carolina, excess rainfall is

typically removed from developed areas by an

existing network of field ditches and canals,

often bypassing natural riparian areas before

entering creeks and streams. As a result, the

nutrients and sediment in storm water are often

carried directly to the nutrient-sensitive river and

estuarine waters.

Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program, fences and alternative watering

systems were constructed to eliminate cattle’s

access to surface waters. Stream crossings were

constructed to prevent damage to the water body

from equipment and cattle, and rotational grazing

systems were tested. Integrated Pest Management

practices were used, providing the dual benefits of

reducing production costs and increasing environmental protection.

Of the 38 farms reaching the planning level,

50 percent have completed implementation of

best management practices, resulting in a significant reduction in agriculture-related nonpoint

source pollution entering Wappingers Creek. The

AEM process has provided an inventory that has

enhanced the Dutchess County Farmland Protection Program, helping to preserve agricultural

enterprises in the headwaters of the creek.

Keeping farms viable is important for the

environmental health of the watershed. As development pressure increases in Dutchess County,

the AEM Program continues to play a vital role in

maintaining the county’s agricultural heritage.

prises, primarily concentrated in the northern portion of the

watershed. A broad

diversity of agriculture

is represented, ranging

from traditional animal operations to

vineyards and specialty

cash crops.

All 108 agricultural operations in the watershed

elected to participate in the AEM Program. The

process involves farm inventory and assessment,

planning, implementation, and evaluation. An array

of nutrient management practices were implemented

on more than 3,000 acres of agricultural land, covering a diversity of operations including crop farms,

horse operations, and tree farms. Strip cropping

techniques, in which alternating strips of different

crops are planted in the same field, were used to

minimize wind and water erosion.

Soil and manure were tested to assess the

nutrient levels so that proper application rates

could be determined. In partnership with the U.S.

Winner of the 2000 Environmental Stewardship

Award, the Coon brothers’ farm was one of the

first in the state to participate in the AEM Program.

Dutchess County SWCD

North Carolina
112

Installing constructed wetlands

In an effort to control water flow and improve

water quality, constructed wetlands were installed

to intercept two ditches draining approximately

600 acres of a surrounding agricultural and urban

watershed in the town of Edenton, North Carolina. The drainage area included a hospital, a

shopping center, residential areas, and several

hundred acres of agricultural land. In addition to

the two inlet ditches, one small side ditch, several

tile drains, and possible groundwater movement

also contributed to the wetland.

The wetland systems are considered “constructed” wetlands because the natural relief or

lack of relief is not conducive to implementing a

traditional riparian system. Wetlands were created

in existing drainage canals by installing water

control structures and planting several native

wetland species.

Educational opportunities were also provided

for school groups, scout troops, and civic groups.

Two field days, four educational meetings, and one

training workshop for agency personnel and consultants were held.

Mixed results

The project demonstrated that wetlands with small

wetland/watershed area ratios can provide significant water quality benefits for nitrogen, although

phosphorus increased. Monitoring and data collection at this site were conducted from 1996 to 1999.

The integration of grab and automatic sampling

schemes resulted in more than 1,000 water quality

samples. Concentrations of all forms of nitrogen

were reduced significantly between the inlets and

the wetland outlet over the evaluation period. The

highest drop in concentrations was achieved for

nitrate nitrogen (NO3

–N, 60 percent), with lower

declines for ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N, 33 percent) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN, 9.5 percent) levels. Total nitrogen concentrations were 20

percent lower at the wetland outlet.

Phosphorus levels increased 55 percent

between the inlets and the outlet. The liberation

of phosphorus bound in the wetland substrate

and organic matter apparently negated any sorption or uptake occurring within the wetland. At

some point in the future, phosphorus equilibrium might be reached, leading to no net increase

at the outlet. Thus far, however, no decline has

been observed.

Nitrate and ammonium nitrogen concentrations dropped as much through the wetland during the dormant months as during the growing

season. TKN concentrations were lowered only

during the winter months. The observed increase

in phosphorus concentrations between wetland

inlets and the outlet was significantly larger during

the summer months than in the dormant periods.

Public acceptance of the project was excellent, attributed to the pleasing aesthetics of the

sites. A variety of wildlife continues to flourish in

the wetland.

For more information on the project, go to

www.bae.ncsu.edu/research/evans_web/etd/

klbass.pdf.

North Carolina
113

Goose Creek Urban Stream Rehabilitation Project:

Ecosystem Protection Practices Installed in Low-Income Neighborhood

Durham County, North Carolina

NORTH CAROLINA

Contacts:

Edward Culberson

District Administrator

Durham Soil and Water

Conservation District

721 Foster Street

Durham, NC 27701

919-560-0558

Angela Jessup

USDA Natural Resource

Conservation Service

600 West Innes Street

Salisbury, NC 28114

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• degraded channel

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• ecosystem protection

practices (stream

rehabilitation)

Results:

• revegetation of 600-foot

reach

• decrease in sulfate levels

• flow-reducing structures

installed along 1,584

feet of streambank

Goose Creek is the major stream draining eastcentral Durham, North Carolina. The creek is a

tributary of Ellerbe Creek, identified in the 1993

and 1998 Neuse River Basin Management Plans as

not supportive of its intended uses. The watershed

is in an old, well-established low-income neighborhood with little opportunity for landscape modification to alter runoff quantity or quality.

The channel was extremely degraded with

hardened channel control structures, including

concrete fiber fill lining and vertical rock wall

channel banks. The hardened urban flow channels

were extremely conducive to carrying large quantities of sediment at a very high velocity.

Three-phase creek restoration

Restoration of Goose Creek involved installing

ecosystem protection practices, or EPPs (stream

rehabilitation), to reduce sediment, reduce thermal

fluctuation, and increase dissolved oxygen. Recommended EPPs were derived from typical

stream restoration techniques and modified for

the Goose Creek system. The project was designed to rehabilitate more than 2,100 feet of the

stream, in three continuous treatment phases.

Phase I included the installation of 25 log

structures in an 884-foot-long concrete-lined fiber

fill channel. The concrete-lined channel provided

no water quality protection or vegetation to reduce flow. The log structures provided channels to

break up storm flow energy; variety of flow allows for deposit behind the logs and storage of

sediment. This phase of the project included the

addition of soil and planting of wetland vegetation to provide shade and some nutrient uptake in

the cement-lined area. A group of volunteers

planted willows and wetland plants along a 600-

foot reach of the project.

Phase II of the project occurred in a public

park but was constrained by vertical rock walls on

both sides. Four rock cross veins were installed

along a 700-foot reach to break up energy and

increase dissolved oxygen in this low-gradient

channel. The cross veins reduce stress on the rock

walls by transferring flow toward the center of the

channel.

Phase III of the project was to involve a section of the stream that runs through an industrial

and commercial area. This phase was not completed within the scope of the 319 grant primarily

because of the need to perform underground soil

remediation at an industrial site. However, Phase

III has received funding from the North Carolina

Clean Water Management Trust Fund and is projected to be completed after the soil remediation is

performed, possibly by the end of 2001.

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/319updat.pdf

North Carolina
114

Meeting the challenge

Phases I and II of the project were completed in

February of 1999. The education portion of the

project, which is coordinated through the Durham

Soil and Water Conservation District Office, is

ongoing.

The project is unique in that it has employed

stream restoration techniques in an extremely

constrained situation to create a sustainable creek

ecosystem. The term “ecosystem protection

practice” is appropriate, considering the initial

channel condition. Installation of these practices

through an elementary school and public park

will increase education opportunities in this lowincome neighborhood. The enhancements will

improve public perception about the stream and

potentially reduce litter and other pollutants to

the system.

Cottonwood Creek Watershed:

Project Is a Success in the Works

LaMoure County, North Dakota

NORTH DAKOTA

Contact:

Bob Flath

LaMoure County Soil

Conservation District

USDA Building

211 South Main

Box 278

LaMoure, ND 58458-0278

701-883-5344

conserve@drservices.com

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (grazing and

croplands)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients (nitrogen and

phosphorus)

• suspended solids

• fecal coliform bacteria

Project Activities:

• agricultural BMPs (waste

management facilities,

grazing practices,

conservation plans, low/

no-till equipment)

Results:

• agricultural practices

implemented on more

than 34,000 acres

• positive trends in total

ammonia and nitrogen

concentrations

Lake LaMoure, constructed in 1973, is a 500-acre

reservoir on Cottonwood Creek in southeastern

North Dakota. The reservoir’s watershed encompasses some 107,000 acres, and agricultural production (crops and livestock) is the primary land

use in the watershed. Swimming, boating, and

fishing are the main recreational uses of the reservoir. Local residents, however, were becoming

increasingly concerned about the deteriorating

recreational opportunities at the lake. Of particular concern were the frequent algae blooms in

mid- to late summer and a fish community dominated by rough fish such as carp and bullheads.

The LaMoure County Soil Conservation

District (SCD) initiated an assessment of the Lake

LaMoure watershed in 1995 to evaluate the relationship between land management and degrading

water quality. Assessment activities included measuring water quality and quantity in the creek and

lake and taking an inventory of current land use

practices in the watershed. The SCD was able to

determine that the recreational use impairments in

Lake LaMoure were primarily associated with

nonpoint source pollutants from agricultural

lands, including nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and suspended solids. Potential pollutant

sources included excessively tilled croplands,

overgrazed rangeland, and livestock winter feeding

areas. Resuspended sediments and nutrients resulting from an excessive carp population were a

possible factor contributing to the declining recreational use of the reservoir.

Improving agricultural land management

practices in the watershed

As a result of the assessment, the SCD identified

targeted conservation planning assistance along

with voluntary implementation of best manageNorth Dakota

www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ/wq/
115

Conservation tillage 16,948.6 acres

Nutrient management 9,413.6 acres

Integrated crop management 2,717.0 acres

Crop residue use 2,246.2 acres

Cross fencing/planned grazing 220.0 acres

Hayland planting 874.9 acres

Tree planting 960.0 linear ft

(Not included in acreage total)

Pesticide Management 2,454.2 acres

Total Acres Affected 34,874.5 acres

ment practices (BMPs). This approach was initiated

in 1996 with the development of a watershed

project implementation plan (PIP) that identified

beneficial use improvement and pollutant reduction

goals, specific activities for accomplishing the goals,

and a process for evaluating progress. EPA granted

the Cottonwood Creek Watershed PIP section 319

funding approval in January 1997 ($301,071), and

the project was initiated in March 1997. Subsequent

section 319 funding ($617,249) was also awarded to

the project in 1999 to support expanded efforts.

The primary goal of the Cottonwood Creek

watershed project is to improve the fishery and

recreational use of Lake LaMoure by improving

agricultural land management practices in the

watershed. Land use improvement objectives

include installing 12 livestock waste management

facilities and implementing conservation plans on

more than 50 percent of the acreage in the watershed. Target concentrations by the end of the

project include a mean annual phosphorus concentration of 0.20 mg/L at the inlet and fecal

coliform bacteria concentrations that remain

below 200 colonies/100 mL.

Early success beyond expectations

During the first 3 years, the project focused on

the promotion and installation of BMPs that

reduce nutrient inputs and maintain crop residue

cover on croplands after spring seeding. Particular

emphasis was placed on the promotion of annual

soil testing and the use of no-till or minimum

tillage equipment. Through these efforts, the

project has exceeded the SCD’s original expectations and is already well on the way to achieving

its land management goals.

As of October 2000, conservation plans were

being implemented on about one-fourth of the

agricultural lands in the watershed. The main

practice scheduled under these conservation plans

is conservation tillage, which calls for maintaining

more than 30 percent crop residue cover on croplands after spring seeding. Nutrient and pesticide

management practices are also being implemented

concurrently on many of the conservation acres

to reduce chemical inputs. The factors with the

most influence on the widespread adoption of

conservation tillage, nutrient management, and

other BMPs are a high level of producer participation, an expanded educational effort, and targeted one-on-one planning assistance delivered by

skilled project staff. Total conservation tillage

acres and other BMPs applied in the watershed, to

date, are as follows:

Although the SCD continues to strive toward

improved management on more than 50 percent

of the cropland acres, they have also recently

begun to direct more assistance and attention

toward livestock management to reduce water

quality concerns (fecal coliform concentrations)

associated with livestock manure. To date, the

efforts have resulted in the installation of two

livestock manure management facilities and the

preliminary development of several grazing plans.

In addition, project staff are working with six

other producers interested in installing manure

management facilities in 2001. When these systems are installed, the project will be more than

halfway to its goal of installing 12 manure management facilities after just 2 years of active

implementation.

North Dakota
116

Continued monitoring of water quality

benefits

Project progress and BMP benefits are being evaluated through water quality monitoring at three sites

on the creek. Data collected at these sites include

stream stage and discharge, and pollutant concentrations. The water quality variables being monitored are nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), total

suspended solids, and fecal coliform bacteria.

Baseline data collected from 1995 to 1998 and

water quality monitoring have been used to define

baseline conditions and reflect water quality conditions before project implementation. Water quality

data collected after 1999 will be used to document

the cumulative benefits of BMPs applied in the

watershed because 1999 was the first year with a

significant number of BMPs.

Although the project has realized quick progress

toward its land management goals, the nature of the

applied practices and size of the watershed make it

very difficult to accurately measure the water quality

benefits associated with the practices over the short

term. However, a preliminary review of water quality

data collected since 1997 does indicate that water

quality conditions are beginning to improve at some

sampling sites in the watershed.

The most notable water quality trend has

been detected at the monitoring site for the headwaters watershed. Although fluctuations in the

concentrations are still within the range of natural

variability, it appears that the project is having a

positive effect on total ammonia and nitrogen

concentrations in the upper portion of the watershed. However, examination of other water quality variables, such as fecal coliform bacteria, shows

mixed results. Consequently, an accurate evaluation of the Cottonwood Creek project after just 2

years of “targeted implementation” cannot be

based on measured water quality trends.

A more accurate indicator during this early

stage of the project is an evaluation of the number of BMPs applied in the watershed. Based on

this information, the Cottonwood Creek project is

achieving land management improvements in the

watershed and can truly be recognized as a “success in the works.” Over the long term, as BMPs

mature and additional practices are installed, the

water quality benefits of these land use changes

will be tracked through ongoing monitoring efforts and the data will be used to confirm and

quantify the anticipated success of the Cottonwood Creek project.

North Dakota
117

Red River Basin Riparian Project:

Turtle River Site Passes the Test

Grand Forks County, North Dakota

NORTH DAKOTA

Contact:

Dave Rush

Riparian Project Manager

701-352-3550

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• streambank erosion

• agriculture (grazing)

• logging

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• bioengineering practices

(slope stabilization,

installation of riprap,

revegetation)

Results:

• establishment of riparian

vegetation that

withstands flooding

• reduced sedimentation

Over the past 50 years,

most riparian areas in

eastern North Dakota

watersheds have been

mismanaged and degraded by activities like

overgrazing, intensive

agriculture, and indiscriminate logging. It is estimated that more than 50 percent of the original

forest cover in many watersheds in eastern North

Dakota has been cleared for agricultural use. In

addition, unmanaged grazing has damaged a

significant portion of the remaining riparian

forests. Overgrazing, in combination with the

1987 to 1990 drought, left many riparian areas in a

weakened condition and susceptible to insects and

diseases.

Initiated in 1994, the Red River Basin Riparian Project seeks to restore degraded riparian

corridors in the Red

River Basin in North

Dakota. An advisory

committee with representatives from several

state and federal agencies advises the project

on behalf of the

project’s sponsor, the

Red River Resource

Conservation and Development Council (RC&D).

Healthy riparian corridors offer benefits for water

quality, as well as flood damage reduction and

wildlife habitat.

The project sponsors plan to establish up to

nine demonstration sites in the Red River Basin,

restoring at least 100 river miles during the 5-year

project term. At one demonstration site, the Turtle

River site, the lack of woody vegetation had left the

streambank vulnerable to severe erosion. The

situation was compounded by groundwater seeps

above the baseflow elevation of the river. Between

1978 and 1995, the river migrated approximately

3.5 feet per year to the east until it was only 80 feet

from the county road. When the bioengineering

project was initiated 1995, the site had a vertical

bank about 14 feet high.

Successful bioengineering practices

To stabilize the bank and stop further migration

toward the road, several bioengineering techniques

were implemented. The first step was to create a

The lack of woody vegetation along the river left the streambank vulnerable to

severe erosion.

Willows were planted along the restoration site to

provide long-term stability.

North Dakota

www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ/wq/
118

stable slope for the vegetation. The 14-foot vertical

bank was reshaped to a 3:1 slope, using the waste

from the top as fill at the toe. Riprap was then

installed along the toe to the bankfull elevation.

Bioengineering practices were installed as part of a

workshop featuring the Natural Resources Conservation Services’ bioengineering team from Michigan. Willow fascines and a brush mattress were

installed along the 300-foot length to armor the

bank and to begin the revegetation process.

Passing the test

Serendipitously, the Turtle River project coincided

with the biggest flood of the century in the Red

River valley, so it has sparked a new appreciation

of river systems. It has also been well positioned

to offer solutions that recognize the characteristics

of a naturally stable river system.

Although some maintenance was required

each spring in 1996 and 1997, the project bioengineering has survived both spring floods and a 17-

inch rainstorm in July 2000. The lessons learned

from experience at the Turtle River site include

the following:

• Soil/plant material contact is best provided

by using water to place the soil over brush

mattresses and fascines. Sponsors used a

power washer to wash in the soil placed by

the backhoe.

• The loose fill used at the toe can be susceptible to erosion, especially in the first season. The site appears to have responded

well to the repair work, but adding roughness to the toe would have helped. The use

of root wads will be demonstrated at the

Sheyenne River site.

• Deer and beaver find willow sprouts irresistible. At the Turtle River site, time will

tell whether animals were detrimental to

the survival of the willows. In the future

the use of repellants might be necessary.

Riparian areas are crucial to the long-term

protection and enhancement of the streams,

rivers, and lakes in eastern North Dakota. Wellmanaged riparian zones help provide optimum

food and habitat for stream communities, while at

the same time serve as buffer strips for controlling

nonpoint source pollution. Used as a component

of an integrated management system (including

nutrient management and erosion control), riparian buffers can greatly benefit the quality of the

state’s surface water resources.

After the bioengineering work was complete, the streambank was able to

withstand spring floods and an unusual 17-inch rainstorm in July 2000.

At a workshop, the Natural Resources Conservation

Service demonstrated the implementation of several

bioengineering techniques.

North Dakota
119

Stillwater River Watershed Protection Project:

High Local Interest Helps Launch Watershed Project

Darke and Miami Counties, Ohio

OHIO

Contact:

Nikki Reese

1117 South Towne Court

Greenville, OH 45331

937-548-1752

nikki-reese@oh.nacdnet.org

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• sediment

Project Activities:

• agricultural BMPs

(buffers, fencing,

alternate water sources,

conservation tillage,

nutrient management)

• education and outreach

Results:

• increases in conservation

tillage

• establishment of stream

buffers and constructed

wetland

Since its inception in 1992, the Stillwater River

Watershed Protection Project has been a model for

other projects in the development of watershed

planning and implementation for the control of

agricultural nonpoint source pollution. The project

was originally proposed in 1988 as a Hydrologic

Unit project through the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Funding for this purpose was not

granted, but local interest in a watershed project

remained very high. With the assistance of 604(b)

funding, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission completed a management plan for the

project. The project was then launched with the

support of a joint board of supervisors drawn

from the Darke County and Miami County Soil and

Water Conservation Districts.

To date, more than $2 million has been raised

from external sources to help implement the

watershed plan. The sources include the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency’s 319 Program,

as well as several funding programs through the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). In addition, the joint board entered into an agreement

with Ohio EPA for a Water Pollution Control

Loan Fund (WPCLF) Program that so far has

provided $1.3 million in loans to 57 participants.

Emphasis on agricultural practices

Much emphasis has been placed on the installation

of best management practices (BMPs), identified in

the project’s management plan as key to success.

Stream buffers of grass and trees were established.

Where necessary, exclusion fencing was installed

along with alternative water sources for cattle.

Nutrient management, including soil sampling for

precision farming, has been demonstrated. Additional cost-share incentives and Ohio EPA’s linked

deposit low-interest loan program have resulted in

the purchase of equipment for conservation tillage

and manure management.

Importance of outreach

Education programs in the watershed have included

two canoe trips each year to acquaint landowners,

local officials, students, and others with the river and

its environment. In addition to quarterly newsletters,

speaking engagements, and fair displays, two sites

have been established for annual field days. These

sites include demonstrations of BMPs to protect

water quality and increase farm productivity. Additional annual field days have emphasized conservaEducation programs, including state fair displays,

emphasize the benefits of BMPs to protect water

quality and increase farm productivity.

Ohio

www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/nps.html
120

tion tillage, and a marked

increase in its use has

been documented in the

watershed (see figures).

A wetland was also

constructed at a county park to demonstrate its function and its importance

to water quality and wildlife. Annual

conservation tours also have exposed

people to the BMPs installed as a result

of the project.

Leveraging additional funding

An additional benefit is that this project has

stimulated many other sources of funding for use

in the watershed. USDA committed Water Quality

Incentives Project funds to three subwatersheds,

one of which has a large number of livestock

operations, to improve manure handling and

nutrient management through effective nutrient

management planning. Ohio’s Department of

Natural Resources has contributed grants for

conservation easements (in cooperation with local

park districts), a manure nutrient management

technician, a wildlife technician, exclusion fencing

for livestock, geographic information system

(GIS) equipment and training, and a watershed

coordinator. To help

ensure continuation of

the project, the joint

board is pursuing incorporation as a 501(c)(3)

nonprofit organization.

Toussaint River Incentive Improvement Program:

Buffer Project Becomes a Model of Conservation Partnership

Wood, Sandusky, and Ottawa Counties, Ohio

OHIO

Contact:

Kurt Erichsen

Toledo Metropolitan Area

Council of Governments

419-241-9155 (ext. 126)

kurt@tmacog.org

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

• habitat alteration (stream

channelization and removal

of riparian vegetation)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• sediment

Project Activities:

• filter strips

• set-aside floodplain areas

• conservation tillage

practices

Results:

• established 142,213

linear feet of buffers

• conservation tillage

farming methods on

1431.21 acres

When the Great Black Swamp was drained in the

late 1800s, northwest Ohio settlers discovered

very fertile soils that were capable of high-yield

agricultural production. Today, with an extensive

system of artificial drainage in place, the region is

a leader in grain and specialty crop agriculture.

Ohio’s western Lake Erie watersheds devote 65 to

87 percent of their land use to farming. Because

of the geologic history of this area and the current land use, Lake Erie water quality suffers from

The project emphasized establishing

stream buffers of grass and trees to

reduce sediment and nutrients

entering streams.

Ohio

www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/nps.html
121

large sediment and

nutrient loadings from

agricultural runoff.

Nationwide initiatives and funding

programs to reduce

nonpoint source pollution are meeting with

success in Ohio. With

the introduction of

the Lake Erie Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

(CREP) in 2000 and ongoing 319 and Conservation Reserve Programs, landowners have increased

opportunities to receive incentives for implementing agricultural best management practices

(BMPs) that improve or protect water quality. The

Toussaint River Incentive Improvement Program

is a watershed implementation project that has

promoted buffer practices along nearly threefourths of the river’s main stem.

The Toussaint River, in northwest Ohio,

flows directly into Lake Erie between Toledo and

Port Clinton. A relatively small watershed, the

Toussaint watershed covers about 90,000 acres

and comprises portions of Wood, Sandusky, and

Ottawa Counties. The main causes of water quality impairment are habitat alteration (stream

channelization and removal of riparian vegetation), siltation, and nutrient enrichment due to the

large agricultural land use in the watershed.

Providing financial incentives

The Toussaint River project offered landowners

along the 36-mile main stem of the river economic

assistance to implement a range of BMPs. Through

a $275,000 subgrant from Ohio EPA’s 319 Program, financial incentives were available to establish

filter strips, set aside floodplain areas, and use

conservation tillage practices along the river corridor. The landowners were required to make a 5-

year commitment to maintain these conservation

practices. Water quality assessments of the river

were made both before practices were put into

place and after they were established. The goal of

the program was to reduce sediment and nutrient

loadings into the Toussaint River and Lake Erie.

Success in implementation

Landowners along the Toussaint River signed 57

contracts, more than 32.13 acres of filter strips

were established, and 233.25 acres of floodplains

were set aside and planted to grass. This means

that a total of 142,213 linear feet of streamside

land (nearly 27 miles of the 36-mile-long stream

corridor) was converted to conservation buffer

practices that will improve water quality. Along

with these improvements, participating farmers

switched to conservation tillage farming methods

on 1,431.21 acres adjoining the new buffers.

Although the original grant objective was to

install 100 acres of filter strips and to set aside 100

acres of floodplain, there was more landowner

interest in the downstream reach of the river where

there is a lower gradient and a broad, flat floodplain. The grant was modified to increase the maximum filter strip width to 200 feet in floodplain

areas with alluvial soil types. It is believed that the

A grass filter strip,

in combination

with a riparian

buffer, helps

protect the water

quality in this

stream.

A 200-foot-wide floodplain is set aside

along portions of the Toussaint River.

A 20-foot-wide filter strip maintained along a grass channel helps reduce

sediment entering the Toussaint River.

Ohio
122

wider filter strips in these more extensively flooded

areas will further control erosion, provide wildlife

habitat, and benefit water quality.

The Agricultural Runoff Action Group of

the Maumee Remedial Action Plan (RAP) sponsored this 319 grant. The RAP’s objective is to

restore the Lower Maumee River, one of 42 Great

Lakes Areas of Concern. The Agricultural Runoff

Action Group is a partnership of more than one

dozen agencies and private organizations that

have contributed some $208,000 in local and state

matching funds to this project. Of particular note

was the strong leadership and the cooperation

between Soil and Water Conservation District

staff in the three counties, as well as the donation

of seed, equipment, and labor by local Pheasants

Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Wetlands:

A Sustainable Solution for Abandoned Mine Problems

Pittsburg and Latimer Counties,Oklahoma

OKLAHOMA

Contacts:

Robert W. Nairn, Ph.D.

The University of Oklahoma

405-325-3354

nairn@ou.edu

Oklahoma Conservation

Commission

Water Quality Division

405-810-1002

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• acid mine drainage

• abandoned mines

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• high concentrations of

metals

• acidity

• sulfate

Project Activities:

• installation of treatment

wetlands systems

Results:

• improved water quality

(lower concentrations of

metals, acidity removal)

• increased populations of

wildlife, fish, and

macroinvertebrates

Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a major nonpoint

source pollution concern in many former mining

regions. AMD is formed by the oxidizing action

of air and water on exposed sulfidic strata and is

characterized by elevated concentrations of metals

(especially iron and aluminum), acidity, and sulfate. In Oklahoma, AMD impacts from abandoned coal mining activities are most prevalent in

the Gaines Creek watershed of Pittsburg and

Latimer Counties.

Traditional mine drainage treatment technologies are not viable options at abandoned

mines because of their laborious and cost-intensive nature. However, passive treatment technologies that rely on natural biogeochemical and microbiological processes to ameliorate AMD, such

Forever chapters to establish the filter strips. The

Agricultural Runoff Action Group was recently

awarded a second 319 grant for $300,000 to continue promoting these riparian conservation practices. The objectives of the second phase include

providing incentive payments for similar buffer

and tillage practices along the tributaries throughout the Toussaint River watershed.

With 22,500 miles of county ditches in Ohio

and enough linear footage of drain tile in northwest Ohio to reach to the moon, there is plenty of

opportunity for watershed protection groups to

join the effort to establish riparian buffers, reduce

soil erosion, and improve water quality. Neighboring watersheds can look to the Toussaint River

project for a model of conservation partnership.

www.okcc.state.ok.us/water_quality_web/NPSMP_final_draft.pdf

Wetlands that rely on passive treatment

technologies are a viable treatment for AMD.

Oklahoma
123

as treatment wetlands,

often provide viable

treatment alternatives

if enough land area is

available.

In 1998, with

support of a section

319 grant provided by

EPA Region 6 and the

Oklahoma Conservation Commission, the

University of Oklahoma initiated a treatment wetlands demonstration project to improve the

quality of contaminated water at the #40 Gowen

site. Of the dozen or more identified discharges in

the watershed, the Gowen site was identified as

having the greatest impact on the stream due to

AMD. Drainage from the site affects Pitt Creek, a

tributary to Gaines Creek, which drains to Lake

Eufaula. Both creeks are on the state’s 303(d) list for

metals and pH violations related to surface mining.

Treatment technology

At the Gowen site, a Successive Alkalinity-Producing System wetland treatment process was

implemented. Treatment occurs in a four-cell

system of alternating vertical flow wetlands (VF)

and surface flow aerobic ponds (SF). AMD is

sequentially treated by charging the waters with

alkalinity in the first

VF, then providing

near-optimum conditions for precipitating

metals in the first SF.

Alkalinity consumed

by metal hydrolysis in

the first SF is recharged to the waters

in the subsequent VF,

thus allowing further precipitation of metals in

the final SF.

The size of the AMD and the flow rate into

the treatment cells were calculated based on land

availability, metals loading, and acidity. Because

treatment of the entire discharge with the land

area available was not feasible, the system was

sized to demonstrate effective treatment of only a

portion of the flow. Based on contaminant loadings of about 18,000 and 7,000 grams per day of

acidity and iron and anticipated removal rates of

30 to 40 grams per square meter per day of acidity from published data and column studies, the

system was designed with a surface area of approximately 750 square meters.

All water flows through the treatment wetlands are gravity-driven. Only a portion of the

entire discharge (about 20 liters per minute) flows

through the demonstration project. Each VF

includes three vertical sections. The top layer

(standing water) provides water head necessary to

drive water through the underlying substrate. The

middle layer is designed to generate alkalinity by

biotic and abiotic means. It consists of a 1-meterthick mixture of spent mushroom substrate, limestone, and hydrated fly ash. The bottom layer is a

gravel underdrain that acts as a highly permeable

zone to transmit water leaving the system through

a network of drainage pipes. The treatment cells

were planted with native wetland vegetation.

Improvements in water quality

Chemical water quality and quantity and wildlife

use have been monitored every 2 weeks for 2 years.

Results indicate that the treatment wetlands have

successfully improved water quality to within applicable regulatory guidelines for more than 2 years.

Concentrations of iron, aluminum, and manganese

have decreased significantly, and pH and alkalinity

concentrations have increased significantly. The

Dr. Keith Strevett, graduate student Denae Athay,

and Dr. Robert Nairn have sampled substrate for

chemical and microbiological analysis.

Native wetland vegetation, including cattail,

sedges, rushes, willow, and water primrose, lines

the constructed cell.

Oklahoma
124

final effluent of the system has maintained a net

alkaline condition (above 150 mg/L) with pH

greater than 6. Concentrations of trace metals were

either near the detection limit at all sampling locations (barium, cadmium, chromium, copper and

lead) or retained completely by VF1 (nickel and

zinc) to less than the detection limit.

Several species of amphibians, reptiles, birds,

and mammals use the site. Biological assessments in

the summer of 2000 indicated healthy populations

of fish and macroinvertebrates in three of the four

cells. Macroinvertebrate community structure

indicates a trend from tolerant to less-tolerant

species with flow through the wetland system.

Duplication of success

The Gowen treatment wetlands demonstration

project—the first and only successful passive

AMD treatment system in Oklahoma—represents

a sustainable and cost-effective solution for the

devastating impacts of AMD on the environment.

Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the

project is the transferability of this technology to

Poteau River Comprehensive Watershed Management Program:

Local Involvement Ensures Program Sustainability

LeFlore County, Oklahoma

OKLAHOMA

Contact:

Shanon Phillips

Oklahoma Conservation

Commission

5225 North Shartel

Suite 102

Oklahoma City, OK 73118-6035

405-810-1002

Shanonp@okcc.state.ok.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (poultry

industry, pasture

maintenance)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• sediment

Project Activities:

• education

• agricultural BMPs

• watershed model

development

Results:

• improved watershed

model

• sustained partnerships

The Upper Poteau River, including Wister Lake

and its tributaries, is identified among Oklahoma’s

top priorities for nonpoint source control implementation in the state’s section 319 Nonpoint

Source Management Program. The river is cited as

having impaired recreational and drinking water

uses; nutrients and sediment are the major

nonpoint source concerns. The land in the watershed is primarily agricultural and Forest Service

land. Most of the agricultural land consists of

pastureland and poultry houses.

Using section 319 grant monies from EPA

Region 6, along with state match dollars, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC), Oklaother mining-impacted watersheds. Already, the

Gowen treatment wetland design is being applied

to problems at the Tar Creek Superfund Site in

Ottawa County, Oklahoma, and is being investigated for application in several other watersheds

nationwide. The Tar Creek site is part of a former

lead and zinc mining area and is ranked number

one on the National Priorities List. Coupled

vertical flow wetland and surface flow pond

designs are applicable to these waters and represent the only treatment methodology that has

been considered viable for improvement and

restoration of the waters of Tar Creek.

The budget for the Gowen treatment wetlands

demonstration project was $125,000. Partners in

the effort included The University of Oklahoma

School of Civil Engineering and Environmental

Science, Oklahoma Conservation Commission’s

Water Quality Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latimer County Conservation

District, and landowners William Battles and

Mindy Ledbetter. Local companies and volunteers

provided in-kind assistance or donations.

www.okcc.state.ok.us/water_quality_web/NPSMP_final_draft.pdf

Oklahoma
125

homa State Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University Department of Biosystems

and Agricultural Engineering, LeFlore County

Conservation District, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Blacklands Research

Center, Poteau Valley Improvement Association,

Lake Wister Advisory Association, residents of

the Haw Creek Valley Watershed, Lake Wister/

Poteau River Steering Committee, and U.S. Geological Survey worked in various capacities to

calibrate and improve watershed models and

implement best management practices (BMPs)

and educational programs to restore and protect

the water resources. The program incorporated all

of the previous work in the Wister Lake/Poteau

River watershed, such as the Clean Lakes Phase I

Project and 7 years’ worth of model development.

One of the greatest successes of the program was

the involvement of local residents and organizations in implementing the various program components and ensuring that the program will continue.

Lasting watershed-wide participation

Much of the project framework was created at a

local level, making it easier to sustain several

components of the project beyond the original

FY 1994 section 319 funding. The steering committee was made up of representatives from the

LeFlore County Conservation District, LeFlore

County Cooperative Extension, NRCS, Farm

Service Agency, Oklahoma Forestry Service,

agricultural producers, local government and

homeowners, and recreational interests. The committee met monthly throughout the project and

continued to meet beyond the end of the project

to discuss details of the program, plan future

efforts, and make decisions regarding demonstration practices, their locations, and cost-share

reimbursement percentages. Although practices

were demonstrated in a subwatershed (the Haw

Creek area of the Black Fork of the Poteau

River), the remainder of the program was watershed-wide.

Of particular note are the activities the Conservation District has perpetuated beyond the life

of the project. During the project, the Conservation District and District Conservationist secured

100 percent participation by the poultry producers

in the demonstration area. They also established

test plots to demonstrate the effectiveness of

various BMPs at reducing nutrient and sediment

runoff. They have continued to maintain these

plots beyond the life of the project and have

established additional plots from new sources of

funding to sustain the effort. The District also

established a successful education program,

partnering with the Cooperative Extension Service and other groups, to inform citizens about

the importance of water quality and methods of

conservation. This education program has continued and expanded beyond the life of the project

to include regular classes at the local college, a

volunteer monitoring program, and continued

newspaper articles and education programs at

schools. These continued activities are geared

toward expansion of the demonstrated practices

outside the demonstration subwatershed.

 Through their continued efforts, the Conservation District, NRCS, and other local partners

have illustrated their commitment towards solving

water quality problems in the watershed. In addition, the area is an Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) priority area and the District and NRCS have cooperated to target EQIP

funds toward practices that benefit water quality.

This commitment has led to future projects to

demonstrate BMPs throughout the remainder of

the Poteau River and Wister Lake watershed. An

FY 2000 319(h) grant, along with state cost-share

Oklahoma
126

monies, is devoted toward demonstrating BMPs

throughout the watershed and achieving the river’s

eventual support of beneficial uses and removal

from the state’s 303(d) list.

Providing a platform to improve the SWAT

model

Yet another result of the project was a modification to the Soil and Water Assessment Tool, or

SWAT. SWAT is a basin-scale hydrologic/water

quality model developed to predict the effects of

alternative river basin land use management decisions on water, sediment, and chemical yields.

SWAT operates on a daily time step and is capable

of simulating 100 or more years. The major components of the model are hydrology, weather,

erosion, soil temperature, crop growth, nutrients,

pesticides, subsurface flow, and agricultural management. SWAT offers distributed-parameter and

continuous time simulation with flexible watershed configuration, automatic irrigation and fertilization, interbasin water transfer, and lake water

quality simulation capabilities. It is widely used in

the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads

(TMDLs).

Until now, in-stream nutrient dynamics were

not considered in the SWAT model. This meant

that although the model did a good job predicting

nutrient loading coming off land surfaces, it ignored the processes that affected the nutrients

once they were in the stream. To simulate the instream dynamics, the kinetic routines from an instream water quality model, QUAL2E, were modified and incorporated into SWAT. The Blacklands

Research Institute in Temple, Texas, integrated

QUAL2E kinetics into the SWAT model. The

resulting version of SWAT is now widely used in

modeling basins and in TMDL development.

The Spring Creek Project:

Streambanks Stabilized Through Stream Restoration

Cherokee County, Oklahoma

OKLAHOMA

Contact:

Jim Leach

Assistant Director

Oklahoma Conservation

Commission

5225 North Shartel, Suite 102

Oklahoma City, OK 73118-6035

405-810-1039

jiml@okcc.state.ok.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• logging

• grazing

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• Rosgen classification

• streambank stabilization

Results:

• 75 percent decrease in

erosion

• improved fish

community

• improved recreational

benefits

• stream meander

migration slowed

Spring Creek, a tributary to Fort Gibson Lake,

spans three northeast Oklahoma counties—Delaware, Mayes, and Cherokee. Over the years, intensive logging, clearing, and grazing in the watershed

have resulted in bank erosion, contributing significantly to the gravel load in the stream. Movement

of this gravel (bedload) has accelerated bank

erosion, causing the stream to widen and become

shallow. This channel instability has resulted in

excessive streambank migration, loss of fish habitat, and decreased recreational benefit.

Fluvial geomorphology

Fluvial geomorphology is the study of the form

or shape of stream channels as they flow over the

land. Recent work by Dave Rosgen of Wildlands

Hydrology has resulted in a stream classification

scheme based on eight major variables. Rosgen’s

www.okcc.state.ok.us/water_quality_web/NPSMP_final_draft.pdf

Oklahoma
127

method is useful in that a stream’s stable configuration can be determined and classified so that the

disturbed stream can be restored to this form,

using natural materials on-site. A stream restored

using these techniques is stable and efficient at

transporting bedload and flood flows. It is also

aesthetically pleasing and provides better instream habitat for aquatic life.

The project

Bank restoration was implemented on two reaches

of Spring Creek (Cherokee County) exhibiting

highly accelerated bank erosion due to clearing for

increased hay production. Rosgen’s method was

used to classify the current state of the segments

and determine the channel configuration necessary

to stabilize the bank. The reaches were reshaped

accordingly, and rock vanes, cross vanes, tree rootwads, logs, and vegetation were strategically inserted to affect stream flow and preserve or supplement habitat. Habitat and fish surveys were conducted before and after implementation to assess

the project’s effects in these areas.

Significant improvement

In general, the project sites showed significant,

positive changes from the preimplementation

survey. Physically, water depth through the reaches

almost doubled and total area of eroding bank

decreased by about 75 percent. A visit to the

project site in August 2001 showed the stream

channel modifications still holding effectively.

Rock vanes had successfully diverted flow to the

center of the channel, deepening pools and controlling erosion on the outside of the steam bends.

Stream channel stabilization was apparent from

the abundance of established tree saplings and

other marginal vegetation.

Some of the most notable effects of the

project were exhibited in the fish community.

Both project sites exhibited more species and

markedly higher total numbers of fish in the

postimplementation survey (1.5 and 3.5 times the

preimplementation numbers for downstream and

upstream sites, respectively). The total number of

pool species (sunfish, chub, suckers) increased by

at least 2.4 times the previous abundance in both

project reaches, reflecting the deepening and

enlargement of pools and changes in the overall

stream channel shape. The size composition of

this group indicated multiple year classes, and

young of year were found for all three species.

Thus, it appears that the slower flow regimes and

increased habitat resulting from stabilization

efforts combined to affect overall reproduction of

fish in this area of Spring Creek.

Certain beneficial uses also were restored or

preserved in this area of the creek. Bank instability and subsequent gravel input had shallowed

many areas, limiting fishing and swimming activities previously enjoyed. The upstream site has

stabilized into a long pool deep enough for swimming and fishing. Good numbers of catchable

sportfish have been noted in and around the rock

vanes at the site.

An additional benefit has been the near cessation of channel movement through the project

reaches. In particular, channel migration that

previously threatened an important road through

the property has been arrested through bank

stabilization efforts. Little to no movement was

discernible during the August visit.

Oklahoma
128

The Smith River Estuary has been modified over

the years by a number of projects that have diked

and drained wetland areas in the estuary so they

could be used for livestock grazing. Levees, tide

gates, and dredging were all common practices

from the 1900s to the 1960s.

The Dawson property near the mouth of the

Smith River has been diked and used for agricultural purposes since the early 20th century. Since

the floods of 1996–1997, however, the existing

levee has been breached in three places, resulting

in daily tidal inundation of the property.

Wetland restoration and enhancement as the

answer

The Umpqua Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) received a 319 grant of $85,000

from the Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality in August 1999 to help with the Dawson

Wetland Restoration Project. The landowners

originally contacted the Umpqua SWCD for

assistance in repairing the dike, hoping to halt

the flooding of their property. Eventually, the

project evolved into one that would protect part

of the property and return 30 acres to estuarine

wetlands.

The landowners agreed to donate 30 acres of

their 100-acre parcel to be restored as wetlands,

along with construction of a new levee to protect

the remaining acreage for their homestead and

agricultural purposes. The Umpqua SWCD participated in fundraising for the project and directs

the project inspection and planting of vegetation

on the new levee. Additional partners, such as

Ducks Unlimited, are providing project management and engineering assistance.

In addition to restoring the 30 acres of estuarine wetland, the project also involved enhancing

the 50-acre Stowe Marsh, just upstream from the

Dawson property and managed by the Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife. The marsh

contained a levee with a break in it, and the

project removed a large portion of the levee so

that natural floodplain function could be restored.

Project activities

The Dawson Wetland Restoration Project was

divided into three phases. Phase I of the project,

completed in 1999, included installation of a tide

gate, as well as development of engineering plans

and specifications. Phase II, completed in 2000,

included removal of two sections of the Stowe

Marsh levee to enhance 50 acres of estuarine

wetlands, construction of the new Dawson levee,

vegetation of the new levee and adjacent disturbed areas with native plants, revegetation of

borrow area, and improvements to internal drainage on farmland inside the new levee.

During 2001 Phase III is removing the old

failed levee on the Dawson property, allowing the

Dawson Wetland Restoration Project:

Landowners and Wetlands Both Win

Douglas County, Oregon

OREGON

Contact:

Bill Gates

Umpqua Soil and Water

Conservation District

541-271-2611

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• diked/drained wetlands

• flooding

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• sediment

Project Activities:

• tide gate installation

• removal of levee and

installation of new dike

• revegetation

Results:

• 30 acres of restored

wetlands

• decreased flooding and

sedimentation

• 80 acres of restored

habitat for wildlife

http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/NPSPlan.htm

Oregon
129

30 acres outside the new levee to be returned to

estuarine wetland status. Title to the restored

wetlands on the Dawson property outside the new

levee will be transferred to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Old fencing in the

donated wetlands will be removed. Plantings will

be fortified in the borrow area, and all interior

drainage will be routed to the new tide gate. Fencing will be installed around the new levee to restore livestock grazing to the Dawson ranch.

Additional benefits

Erosion Protection. The existing levee will be left in

place for one winter to protect the new structure

from erosion. Plantings with native vegetation will

be part of the bioengineered plan to prevent

erosion, making the use of riprap unnecessary.

This approach will also reduce future sedimentation into the river.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration. Various

salmonid species use estuaries as incubation areas

for feeding, rearing, and staging before they begin

their ocean migration. The Smith River estuary is

already one of the most important areas in Oregon for threatened coastal coho. The addition of

30 acres and the enhancement of 50 acres will

provide 80 acres of the habitat needed for these

species and others. Waterfowl are also expected to

use the restored wetlands.

Restoration of Estuary Floodplain Function. One

result of the extensive diking of the Smith River

system is that the river’s transport capacity has

increased, resulting in higher river energy against

the city of Reedsport’s levee. This project will

result in more water storage capacity in estuarine

wetlands, moderating the effects of flooding and

reducing the river’s erosive energy.

Public-Private Collaboration. This project represents a win-win situation in which the landowners

benefit by increased protection of their homesteads and the public benefits from the enhanced

ecological functions provided by the restored

wetlands. This collaborative approach respects the

existing land use that provides the family’s economic base while at the same time recognizing

and protecting the important public benefits from

returning a portion of the land to its former

wetland status.

Historically, populations of cutthroat trout and

coho salmon had journeyed through the waters of

South Myrtle Creek, which flows into the South

Umpqua River in Douglas County, Oregon. Since

the early 20th century, however, some form of

diversion structure has been blocking South

Myrtle Creek. In the 1960s a concrete apron

structure with metal supports for planks was

installed to raise the water level to provide water

for irrigation to adjacent and downstream landSouth Myrtle Creek Ditch Project:

Removal of Dam Benefits Aquatic Life

Douglas County, Oregon

OREGON

Contact:

Bob Kinyon

Umpqua Basin Watershed

Council

541-673-5756

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• flow modifications

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• high stream temperature

Project Activities:

• removal of diversion dam

and concrete apron

• conversion from ditch to

sprinkler irrigation

• revegetation of riparian area

• livestock exclusion

Results:

• additional 2.5 cfs water

in stream

• reduced stream

temperature

• improved aquatic life/

fish passage

http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/NPSPlan.htm

Oregon
130

owners. During the summer, the structure elevated water levels by 14 feet, diverting water into

a 21⁄2-mile irrigation ditch. As a result, South

Myrtle Creek has been identified as having water

quality problems from flow modifications and

high stream temperatures.

In 1998 one of the landowners initiated a

project to restore flow and improve water quality

in South Myrtle Creek by removing the diversion

dam and concrete apron, converting from ditch

irrigation to sprinkler irrigation to conserve water,

revegetating the denuded riparian area, and excluding livestock until the seedlings were well

established. That landowner, along with Water

Resources and the Watershed Council, recruited

all of the other landowners who used water from

the diversion, and they began to plan the various

aspects of the project.

The project was a collaborative effort of all

of the landowners, who donated services and

supplies. In addition to 319 funds, funding was

provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, the

Bureau of Land Management, the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Conservation

Reserve Enhancement Program, and two local

foundations, the Joe Merchep Umpqua River

Foundation, and the Douglas Timber Operations’

Fisheries Enhancement Derby. In addition, the

Oregon Water Resources Department and Douglas County Watermaster assisted with the project

by examining water rights and helping to devise a

plan whereby 2.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) of

water is being returned to the stream.

Project highlights and successes

Using a jack hammer, acetylene torch, excavator,

loader, and dump truck, the structure was successfully removed. Because ditch irrigation is the least

efficient use of water because of losses from

evaporation and leakage, irrigation was switched

to the more efficient sprinkler type, with individual pumps drawing from the stream’s surface

water. Water temperature has improved, and flows

have increased by 2.5 cfs during the summer. The

restoration of the streambed to its historical level

allows passage of salmon and trout to the 10

miles of stream above the dam for the first time

in nearly a century, benefiting cutthroat trout,

coho salmon, and steelhead with additional habitat. In the winter of 2000 area landowners confirmed the project’s success when they identified

several coho upstream of the diversion site. Other

aquatic life will also benefit from the reconnection

of the areas above and below the dam.

Streambank restoration along the 21⁄2-mile

project site consisted of planting the riparian area,

which had not supported vegetation for a century

because of annual flooding from irrigation. To

protect young seedlings from livestock, the areas

were fenced until the vegetation could become

established. Establishing this vegetation will contribute to the efforts to reduce stream temperature to levels that better support cold-water fish.

The concrete apron of the diversion structure spanned the creek with a 2-foot

outfall at summer flows. This barrier prevented fish from reaching 10 miles of

stream habitat.

Oregon
131

Wet Meadow Restoration in the Upper Grande Ronde Basin:

Channel Restoration Brings Cooler Waters

Upper Grande Ronde Basin, Oregon

OREGON

Contact:

Mitch Wolgamott

Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality

Pendleton Office

700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330

Pendleton, OR 97801

541-975-2120

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• grazing

• channel modifications

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• high stream temperature

Project Activities:

• channel restoration to

natural meandering

• revegetate riparian areas

Results:

• declining water

temperature

• increased riparian

growth

The streams of the Grande Ronde Basin have

historically provided a rich habitat for coldwater fish such as rainbow trout, salmon, summer steelhead, and bull trout. However, coldwater fish production has been declining since

1970 as a result of land use changes. Those

changes have reduced riparian vegetation by 75

percent and simplified in-stream habitat

through grazing practices and channel modifications. Stream temperatures have risen as

riparian vegetation that once shaded the

streams has been lost, and higher temperatures

in the stream have resulted in reduced coldwater fish populations.

Restoring the channel to its natural pattern

In July 1997 the Oregon Department of Environment Quality used section 319 funds to divert a

half-mile section of lower McCoy Creek from its

channelized segment into the remnants of a historical meandering wet meadow channel. The

stream was treated by stabilizing and revegetating

riparian areas, restoring wet meadow conditions,

and restoring old channels to allow the stream to

meander naturally.

Dramatic results

Response within the newly restored channel section

was quick and dramatic. Existing vegetation, particularly willows, grew quickly in the new riparian

area. Beavers moved in and succeeded in building

dams, which created several large, deep pools and

numerous smaller pools for fish and waterfowl.

Following the channel diversion in 1997, cooler

temperatures were measured within the boundaries

of the restored reach. Compared to the temperature of the water flowing into the restored section,

maximum water temperatures measured in the

middle of the reach were 3.0 o

C cooler in 1997 and

4.6 oC cooler in 1998. In 1998 water temperature

measured at the bottom of the reach was 0.9 oC

cooler than the temperature measured at the top.

Cooling within the restored section can be

attributed to the lower gradient and the deeper,

meandering channel, which allows more mixing

with cool subsurface water. The shading of surface waters by riparian vegetation also contributes

to cooler temperatures. Further protection from

solar heating is provided by the increased depth

and lower width-to-depth ratio in the river. Early

results of cooler water temperatures within the

restored section are encouraging.

http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/NPSPlan.htm

Oregon
132

Contact:

Brian Sneeringer

Adams County

Conservation District

57 North Fifth Street

Gettysburg, PA 17325

717-334-0636 (ext. 306)

bsneeringer@acc.pa.net

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• streambank erosion

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• streambank stabilization

(root wads, rocks,

planting)

Results:

• 800 feet of streambank

stabilized, deep pools,

enhancement of trout

populations

PENNSYLVANIA www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/WC/subjects/NonpointSourcePollution/NPS_Mgmt.htm

Narrows Bioengineering Project:

Cold-Water Fishery Restored Through Bioengineering

Adams County, Pennsylvania

Conewago Creek, just north of Arendtsville in

Adams County, Pennsylvania (commonly referred

to as “The Narrows”) is considered one of the

most scenic stream corridors in the county. The

creek is listed as a “high quality cold water fishery” and a wild trout stream by the Pennsylvania

Fish and Boat Commission and is actively stocked

by several local private clubs.

A series of severe rain events in the summer and

early fall of 1996 resulted in Adams County’s receiving more than 90 inches of rain, nearly 4 feet more

than the county average. As a result, two sections of

Conewago Creek in The Narrows were heavily damaged, resulting in severe streambank erosion. The

damage to the upper of the two sites was exacerbated

by fallen trees, and the erosion on the lower section

was the result of bedload deposit coming primarily

from the upper site. In the past 2 years, it has been

estimated that more than 8,000 tons of soil has fallen

into the creek from these two sites. The eroding

streambanks were filling up pools, degrading the

conditions necessary for fish to thrive in the creek.

In 1998 the two sites on Conewago Creek

were targeted for a streambank stabilization

project totaling 800 linear feet. Because of aesthetics and cost, the standard riprap protection

design was considered undesirable and bioengineering techniques were used instead.

Stabilizing eroding slope

Work began on the project in 1999 and involved

the installation of native rock and root wads along

the streambank. The existing site conditions included down or ready-to-fall trees, which were

used as root wads to help stabilize the toe of the

bank. The goal was for the root wads and rock to

provide the large, heavy material necessary to

stabilize the toe of the eroding slope and prevent

further undercutting. The steep bank was then

regraded to establish a more stable slope, using

the gravel material removed from the adjacent

streambank. This process “softened” this

streambank, allowing the stream to “move” away

from the newly stabilized banks.

The project also involved planting trees (doThe streambank at the McDannel site was severely eroded at the beginning of nated by Adams County Trout Unlimited) and

the project in February 1999.

Pennsylvania
133

grass to improve the aesthetics of the site and to

further aid in stabilization. Nine varieties of trees

were planted; they were chosen based on the

existing tree species around the sites.

Stabilization success

The project was officially completed on March 27,

1999. Natural succession is occurring at the site as

many seedlings are growing quite well. Deep pools

are beginning to form, particularly at the root wad

structures. The root wads are providing excellent

fish habitat, and dozens of trout can now frequently be seen swimming near the root wads in

the deep pools that were created. Although the

project has not yet been tested by extremely high

water levels, small storm events have clearly not

endangered the integrity of any of the root wad

structures.

Villanova’s Storm Water Wetland Retrofit:

BMP Treats Runoff and Provides Research Site

Montgomery and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania

PENNSYLVANIA

Contact:

Robert Traver

Associate Professor

Villanova University

610-519-7899

robert.traver@villanova.edu

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• metals

• suspended solids

Project Activities:

• conversion of storm

water detention basin to

storm water wetland

Results:

• monitoring in progress

Along the border between Montgomery and

Delaware Counties in the southeast corner of

Pennsylvania lies a 41-acre urban watershed. The

watershed consists of more than 16 acres of

impervious surface, including Villanova

University’s parking lots, dormitories, office buildings, railroads, highways, and housing areas. An

existing storm water detention basin on the

university’s property was targeted as an ideal site

for a 319 retrofit project. This basin had the potential to treat the runoff that forms the headwaters of a watershed listed as medium priority on

the state’s degraded watershed list and to treat

flows that affect a high-priority stream segment

on the state’s section 303(d) list.

Project goals

The purpose of the 319 project was to make a

storm water wetland out of the existing detention

basin, creating a water quality treatment facility.

Water quality considerations were not part of the

original design. The existing storm water detention

basin was originally designed to reduce the increased

peak flows coming from the university campus.

Runoff entered the basin through sheet flow from a

An existing storm water detention basin was targeted for a 319 retrofit project. large parking lot and through two major pipes. The

www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/WC/subjects/NonpointSourcePollution/NPS_Mgmt.htm

Pennsylvania
134

site had an existing 12-

inch underdrain that

quickly carried the

water through the

basin, directly connecting the parking lots to

the headwaters of a

small first-order stream.

The site was designed

to remain dry except

during storm events, but there was always some flow

through the underdrain, supporting the concept that

the site was ideal for creating a storm water wetland.

One goal of the project was to prove that

retrofitting could be accomplished easily on an

existing structure without violating the original

design concept. The retrofit of the basin therefore

concentrated on retaining small storms while not

violating the original storm water peak flow controls required by law.

The basin was redesigned by removing the

underground pipes, moving earth to create a

meandering flow path, adding a sediment forebay,

and modifying the structure outlet. Wetland

plantings were conducted; plants were selected for

diversity and based on their ability to thrive at

different inundation levels.

Low flows would now travel through the

sediment forebay to give particles a chance to

settle out. Flows would continue through a meandering wetland channel, maximizing contact with

the plants, and finally through a deeper pool and

the outlet structure. The flow path for larger

storms would provide for the flow to go over a

berm, preventing resuspension of the sediments

collected in the structure, thus using the original

design for peak flow management while avoiding

damage to the low-flow components.

Multiple benefits

Because it is located on the university’s property,

this storm water wetland is not only aiding in the

reduction of pollutants for this headwater but also

serving as a permanent research and demonstration site. To date, hundreds of visitors have

toured the site, and the site is being incorporated

into a demonstration “theme park” of multiple

BMPs (including signage) on Villanova’s property.

The wetland project was completed at the

end of 2000, and the current plan is to wait a year

for the wetlands to mature before starting to

collect water quality samples. Hydrologic and

hydraulic monitoring is already under way, and

flowmeters and a rain gauge also have been installed to collect data. It is projected that total

suspended solids will be reduced by 70 percent,

total phosphorus by 40 percent, total nitrogen by

20 percent, and lead by 75 percent.

A meandering channel was designed to reduce

flow velocity and allow particles to settle out.

Pennsylvania
135

Puerto Rico is one of 29 U.S. states and territories

with special programs and responsibilities for protecting and managing important coastal resources.

To address more specifically the impacts of

nonpoint source pollution on coastal water quality,

Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Section 6217 of the

Act requires that each state with an approved

coastal zone management program (including

Puerto Rico) develop a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution

Control Program and submit it to EPA and the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) for approval. Each program must provide

for the implementation of technical management

measures (section 6217(g) measures) that address

major categories of nonpoint sources that impair

or threaten coastal waters nationally, including

agricultural runoff; urban runoff; forestry runoff;

marinas and recreational boating; and

channelization and channel modification, dams, and

streambank and shoreline erosion.

Adopting the management measures

On February 8, 1999, Puerto Rico’s governor

signed an Executive Order (OE-1999-08) adopting the section 6217(g) management measures as

official public policy throughout the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The order requires the

creation of an Interagency Committee of lead

Commonwealth agencies to uphold the mandate

for the implementation of the section 6217(g)

management measures and to ensure compliance

with the measures for the major categories of

nonpoint source pollution. The Committee is

charged with developing and implementing a plan

for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution

throughout Puerto Rico, while adopting the section 6217(g) measures as “the official technical

guidelines of the Plan.”

The Committee is composed of representatives from various agencies in Puerto Rico, such as

the Environmental Quality Board, the Department

of Natural and Environmental Resources, the

Regulations and Permits Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Soil Conservation

Districts, the Planning Board, the Agricultural

Experiment Station and the Agricultural Extension

Service, the Department of Health, the Department of Transportation and Public Works, the

Highway and Transportation Authority, the Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, the Electric Power Authority, the Ports Authority, and any other government institution that the Committee identifies as

essential to developing and implementing the plan.

Coastal Nonpoint Source Controls:

Executive Order Adopts Section 6217(g) Management Measures as Official Policy

Puerto Rico

PUERTO RICO

Contacts:

Raul Santini

Puerto Rico Department of

Natural and Environmental

Resources

P.O. Box 9066600

Puerta de Tierra, PR 00906-6600

787-724-2816

prczmp@caribe.net

Puerto Rico

Ruben Gonzalez

Puerto Rico Environmental

Quality Board

P.O. Box 11488

Santurce, PR 00910-1488

787-767-8181

jcaagua@prtc.net
136

The Executive Order calls for all Committee

member agencies to adopt the 6217(g) measures

and integrate them into their existing decisionmaking processes as soon as possible, but not later

than 2 years from the effective date of the order.

This requirement applies to direct agency activities

and authorizations for other public and private

activities. The order also lists several specific legal

and administrative mechanisms that the Commonwealth agencies must use to demonstrate compliance with the measures. Finally, the order requires

the Committee members to jointly develop and

implement the “public policies, plans, programs, or

organizational structures required” to ensure the

effective implementation of the required management measures. The Committee meets every month

to review and coordinate agency efforts and track

plan implementation. The Committee is also responsible for preparing a plan implementation

status report for the Governor by February 8, 2002.

Program approval

The Committee was deeply involved with the

development of Puerto Rico’s Coastal Nonpoint

Pollution Control Program, which contains detailed 5-year plans and a 15-year strategy to implement the Executive Order. The Executive Order

provides for adequate, enforceable policies and

mechanisms to ensure implementation of the

section 6217(g) management measures. As a result, on October 17, 2000, Puerto Rico received

federal approval (from NOAA and EPA) for the

Commonwealth’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution

Control Program. The program is the first among

U.S. island territories to receive full federal approval and the fourth overall after Maryland,

Rhode Island, and California. Upon approval of

its plan, Puerto Rico immediately began to implement the 6217(g) management measures in all

public activities, including the granting of authorizations or permits for public or private actions.

Curran Brook Sedimentation Pond:

Multiple Partners Construct Storm Water Control System

Cumberland, Rhode Island

RHODE ISLAND

Contact:

Jim Riordan

Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management

235 Promenade Street

Providence, RI 02908

401-222-4700 (ext. 4421)

jriordan@doa.state.ri.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban storm water runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• bacterial contaminants

• siltation

Project Activities:

• construction of storm

water control system

Results:

• monitoring in progress

The Pawtucket Water Supply Board (PWSB) reservoir system in Rhode Island serves the cities of

Pawtucket and Central Falls and the southern

portion of the town of Cumberland. The system

serves some 110,000 customers. The PWSB’s water

resources derive from both surface water and

groundwater. The four surface water reservoirs—

Diamond Hill Reservoir, Arnold Mills Reservoir,

Robin Hollow Pond, and Happy Hollow Pond—

are the major impoundments controlled by PWSB.

The water treatment plant for PWSB is located at

the southern end of Happy Hollow Pond.

Rhode Island

www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/benviron/water/quality/nonpoint/index.htm
137

Contacts:

Jim Riordan

RIDEM Office of Water

Resources

401-222-4700 (ext. 4421)

jriordan@doa.state.ri.us

Brian Tefft

RIDEM Division Fish and

Wildlife

P.O. Box 218

West Kingston, RI 02892

401-789-0281

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• dredge and fill of tidal

channel/salt marsh

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment/fill

Project Activities:

• installation of selfregulating sluice and tide

gates

Results:

• 68 percent reduction of

Phragmites

• restoration of 84 acres of

salt marsh habitats and

14 acres of tidal creeks

and ponds

www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/benviron/water/quality/nonpoint/index.htm RHODE ISLAND

At the outset of the project, Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management’s

(RIDEM’s) most recent assessment of Happy

Hollow Pond determined that the reservoir was

only partially supporting its designated use. The

reservoir had high levels of nutrients, bacterial

contaminants, siltation, and organic compounds,

which were most probably conveyed by runoff

from the highly urbanized surroundings.

Robin Hollow Pond, located in the lower

portion of the Pawtucket Water Supply watershed,

feeds directly into Happy Hollow Pond, which is

an EPA-designated community water supply.

Robin Hollow Pond receives runoff from the

most urbanized portion of the watershed. The

urbanized area is to the west of the pond in the

town of Cumberland. The project focused on

removing nutrients, bacterial contaminants, siltation, and inorganic compounds from runoff in

the urbanized watershed, thereby decreasing the

need for costly water purification treatments.

State-of-the-art storm water control system

The project consisted of designing, permitting, and

building a state-of-the-art storm water control system to replace an undersized and antiquated sediment pond. The new system includes a sediment

forebay, water quality pond, and artificially created

wetland to treat the storm water during wet weather

events. Project partners included the Northern

Rhode Island Conservation District, PWSB, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation

Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation

Service), RIDEM, and EPA Region 1.

Model project

The system was completed in October 1999. It

has been featured in several field reviews, including the New England Interstate Water Pollution

Control Commission’s 2000 Annual Nonpoint

Source Conference. PWSB has also been monitoring the system to determine its effectiveness in

removing the pollutants of concern.

Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration:

Undersized Culverts Replaced with Self-Regulating Gates

Narragansett, Rhode Island

The coastal features of southern Rhode Island

provide a breathtaking variety of special habitats.

The Galilee Bird Sanctuary is a 128-acre coastal

wetland complex owned and managed by the

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM), Division of Fish and Wildlife.

The sanctuary is east of the port of Galilee and is

bounded by the Galilee Escape Road to the north

and Sand Hill Cove Road to the south.

Unfortunately, much of the Galilee Salt Marsh

has led a fractured existence. During the 1950s

unconfined dredge spoil from the Port of Galilee

Rhode Island
138

was deposited over portions of the western side of

the salt marsh where the Galilee Bird Sanctuary is

located. This disposal filled in a tidal channel that

had been present in this location and significantly

altered the natural hydrology of the marsh.

During a 1954 hurricane, the extreme flooding of Sand Hill Cove Road trapped the residents

of Great Island. To prevent this from occurring

again, the State Division of Public Works constructed the Galilee Escape Road in 1956. Construction of the Escape Road fragmented the

previously continuous salt marsh, eliminating in

the process about 7 acres of valuable marsh habitat. Restriction of tidal flushing transformed the

once-productive salt marsh into dense thickets of

Phragmites and shrubs, causing reduction of natural

coastal wetland habitats for migratory waterfowl,

shorebirds, fish, and shellfish.

Self-regulating gates

The Galilee Salt Marsh Restoration Project was a

multimillion-dollar effort with a number of contributing partners, including the Rhode Island

Department of Transportation, U.S. Army Corp

of Engineers, Ducks Unlimited, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, RIDEM Fish and Wildlife, and

other agencies, under the auspices of the Coastal

America Program.

Section 319 funding contributed to the restoration efforts with a $64,300 grant to replace the

undersized culverts and install self-regulating

sluice and tide gates. The self-regulating gates

allow for minimum intervention and maintenance

and were devised as an alternative to more costly

and operation-intensive electric gates. The gates

operate using a system of floats and balances that

are precisely calibrated to close when water

reaches a preset level.

Impressive results

Marsh restoration was completed and dedicated

October 1997. Results have been strong. Phragmites

was reduced by 68 percent at the completion of

the 1999 growing season, and height was reduced

from 11 feet to 3.5 feet. Fish and wildlife populations have responded to the restoration in dramatic fashion: finfish recolonized the tidal creeks

within days following opening of the tide gates.

Waterfowl (duck and geese), including the American black duck, use the restored marsh extensively

for nesting and feeding and during migration. In

total, approximately 84 acres of salt marsh habitats and 14 acres of tidal creeks and ponds were

restored.

Complete restoration is expected to take 10

years or more. The project has been an enormous

success, and the salt marsh has been designated a

bird sanctuary. The project is an excellent demonstration of collaboration among various branches

of government.

Rhode Island
139

Constructed Wetlands for Failing Septic Tanks:

New Technologies Solve an Old Problem

Statewide

SOUTH CAROLINA

Contact:

Keith Cain

East Piedmont RCD Council

414A South Congress

Street

Winnsboro, SC 29180

803-635-2757

Keith.Cain@sc.usda.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• failing septic tanks

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• fecal coliform bacteria

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• constructed wetland

systems

Results:

• reductions of 99 percent

in fecal coliform bacteria,

86 percent in total

suspended solids, 77

percent in BOD5, 39

percent in total

phosphorus, 59 percent

in nitrate, 35 percent in

ammonia

Failing septic systems can result in partially treated

or untreated surface wastewater containing fecal

coliform bacteria and nutrients, causing nonpoint

source pollution in drainageways, streams, and

lakes. Current technology resulting from a 3-year

study on nine constructed wetland systems conducted by Dr. Kevin White of the University of

South Alabama is being used in the design of

constructed wetlands in South Carolina to treat

sewage from failing septic systems.

The system consists of two shallow basins

about 1 foot in depth and containing gravel, which

supports emergent vegetation. The first of the

two cells is lined to prevent seepage, while the

second is unlined and acts as a disposal field. The

water level is maintained below the gravel surface,

thus preventing odors, public exposure, and vector

problems. In an alternative design, a standard field

drain system is used in place of the second cell.

Encouraging results

Preliminary data collected by the South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) between May 1999 and April

2000 on eight of these systems constructed statewide show significant reductions in nutrients and

bacteria as a result of treatment. The monitoring

shows an average 99 percent reduction in fecal

coliform bacteria, 86 percent in total suspended

solids, 77 percent in 5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD5), 39 percent in total phosphorus, 59

percent in nitrate, and 35 percent in ammonia.

Education component

The East Piedmont Resource Conservation and

Development Council is managing the construction of 10 of these wetland systems to replace

failing septic tank systems at homes in a watershed surrounding Lake Murray. This lake is a large

recreational impoundment in central South Carolina, where poor soil conditions and steep slopes

are causing some conventional systems to fail. A

comprehensive technology transfer program will

complement the project, educating citizens about

the benefits of the management practice. The

Ninety-Six District Resource Conservation and

Development Council is also conducting a similar

project in Greenwood County.

Sampling is conducted through sampling ports.

www.scdhec.net/eqc/water/pubs/nps.pdf

South Carolina
140

Stevens Creek Watershed Project:

Demonstration Sites Show Reductions in Fecal Coliform Bacteria

Edgefield, McCormick, Greenwood, and Saluda Counties, South Carolina

SOUTH CAROLINA

Contact:

Doug Fabel

South Carolina

Department of Health and

Environmental Control

2600 Bull Street

Columbia, SC 29201-1708

803-898-4222

fabeldj@columb32.dhec.state. sc.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• fecal coliform bacteria

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• dairy farm BMPs (grazing

management, fencing,

alternative water sources

for livestock, riparian

vegetation

establishment)

• nutrient management for

poultry farm (dead bird

composting)

Results:

• reductions in fecal

coliform bacteria

The Stevens Creek watershed is in Edgefield,

McCormick, Greenwood, and Saluda Counties,

South Carolina. Historical water quality data indicate increasing trends in fecal coliform bacteria,

turbidity, and total phosphorus and decreasing

trends in dissolved oxygen. Nonpoint source

pollution is degrading the quality of water for

municipal water supply, contributing to deterioration of fisheries, reducing stream channel capacities, and lowering the aesthetic values of the area.

About 85 to 90 percent of the water quality impacts in the Stevens Creek watershed are estimated to be caused by agriculture.

Implementing best management practices

The goal of the Stevens Creek Watershed Project

was to reduce sediment, nutrients, and chemical

runoff from confined and unconfined livestock

operations. The Edgefield Soil and Water Conservation District and

Ninety-Six District

Resource Conservation and Development

Council, Inc., implemented the project

over a 3-year period

between May 1995 and

July 1998. The project

focused on using

systems of best management practices (BMPs)

and whole farm planning and management as keys

to the sustainability of farming operations. Section 319 funds and the farmers on whose farms

the demonstrations were located covered the costs

of the demonstrations.

Two farms in the watershed were selected as

demonstration sites—a dairy operation and a

poultry farm, both in close proximity to flowing

streams. BMPs implemented on the dairy farm

included pasture grazing management, stream

protection by fencing off streambanks and providing alternative water sources for livestock, and

additional riparian vegetation (field borders and

filter strips). Nutrient management, in the form of

dead bird composting, was the target BMP for the

chicken farm. A waste stacking shed was built into

the ground behind the poultry houses, with minimal soil disturbance. Both farms had BMPs implemented in June 1996.

Taking stock of improvements

Three monitoring stations were established for

each farm, one upstream of the project sites, one

downstream, and a control (reference) site.

Baseline data were collected from January 1996

through June 1996, and regular monitoring began

in July 1996 and continued for 21⁄2 years (through

January 1999).

Project partners built a two-cell composter on the

Johnson Poultry Farm to reduce nutrients from

poultry waste runoff.

www.scdhec.net/eqc/water/pubs/nps.pdf

South Carolina
141

Water quality

sampling results indicated significant

reductions in fecal

coliform bacteria at

both the downstream

poultry and dairy

farm stations after

BMP implementation.

Preimplementation

sampling found fecal

coliform bacteria

levels for all stations

ranging from a low of 5 colonies per 100 mL to a

high of more than 2 million colonies per 100 mL;

postimplementation results for all stations ranged

from 2/100 mL to 58,000/100 mL. Nutrient

management (dead bird composting) on the poultry farm significantly reduced fecal coliform bacteria and total suspended solids concentrations

(both spatially and temporally). On the dairy farm,

pasture grazing management and animal fencing

did significantly reduce fecal coliform bacteria

concentrations (spatially and temporally), but they

did not reduce total suspended solids concentrations at the downstream station.

Testing revealed significant reductions in fecal

coliform at Sleepy Creek downstream from Hickory

Hill Dairy.

Big Stone Lake is on the border between South

Dakota and Minnesota. The lake occupies the

valley of a glacial river that once drained historic

Lake Aggasiz. The surface area of the lake is

12,610 acres, and the lake extends southward for

26 miles from Browns Valley, Minnesota, to

Ortonville, Minnesota, and Big Stone City,

South Dakota.

Big Stone Lake and its fishery are the primary

feature for Big Stone Lake State Park, Hartford

Beach State Park, and several resorts. The lake is

also an important recreational attraction for

Ortonville, Big Stone City, and surrounding communities. The fishery of the lake has the potential

to contribute substantially to local and state

Big Stone Lake Restoration Project:

Better Water Quality Improves Fisheries, Recreation

Big Stone Lake, South Dakota

SOUTH DAKOTA

Contact:

Jason Rehn

Roberts County

P.O. Box 128

Sisseton, SD 57262-1523

605-698-3923

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

• urban runoff

• drainage and land use

changes

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• agricultural BMPs (animal

waste management

systems, no-till planting,

buffers)

• construction of lake

outlet control structure

and debris barrier

Results:

• change of lake status

from hypereutrophic to

eutrophic

• shorter algal blooms

• increased state park

attendance/recreational

use of lake

economies. Historically, the fishery has been

managed primarily for walleye, with a secondary

emphasis on yellow perch, bluegill, black crappie,

northern pike, largemouth bass, and channel

catfish. In samples taken in 1971 through 1985,

walleye abundance, as measured by average gill net

catch rates, was near the low end of the “normal”

range for lakes with similar physical and chemical

characteristics.

Agricultural, domestic, and municipal pollution have degraded fish habitat, reduced recreational opportunities, reduced the aesthetic quality

of the lake, and increased the likelihood of more

direct effects on the fisheries in the form of fish

kills. Drainage and land use changes in the lake’s

www.state.sd.us/denr/watershed

South Dakota
142

watershed have contributed to increased sedimentation, nutrient loading, changes in tributary flows,

increases in water level fluctuations, and direct

destruction of aquatic habitats.

Big Stone Lake partners

In the early 1980s citizens of South Dakota and

Minnesota requested assistance from both states and

EPA to begin an effort to restore Big Stone Lake.

The primary concerns were poor water quality,

excessive algae blooms, sedimentation, rooted

aquatic vegetation, and reduced recreation potential.

A series of EPA section 314 and section 319

grants, beginning in 1983, have provided funding

for lake and watershed restoration projects; the

most recent 319 funding was awarded in 1996 and

1999. Currently, U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) and Environmental Quality Incentives

Program funding is also being used to implement

additional conservation practices in Roberts and

Marshall Counties. The key partners in the Big

Stone Lake Restoration Project are watershed

landowners; lake residents; local counties, conservation districts, and municipalities; Upper Minnesota

River Watershed District; Citizens for Big Stone

Lake; South Dakota Department of Environment

and Natural Resources; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; EPA; Natural Resources Conservation

Service; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Restoration project

Various conservation and restoration practices

have been implemented through the Big Stone

Lake Restoration Project. Conservation practices

in the lake’s watershed include the installation of

more than 50 animal waste management systems,

no-till planting of crops, construction of multipleuse wetlands, grassed waterways through cropland

fields, stream buffer strips, streambank stabilization, and implementation of the USDA Conservation Reserve Program. In addition, six municipal

wastewater treatment facilities in the watershed

have been upgraded.

Restoration practices implemented at the lake

include access road erosion control, shoreline

stabilization, and upgraded wastewater treatment.

In addition, a new lake outlet control structure

and debris barrier were constructed at the south

end of the lake. The main purpose of the structure is to divert the majority of flow from the

Whetstone River away from Big Stone Lake. The

Whetstone River was diverted into the lake in the

1930s to augment lake levels, but the diversion

resulted in excessive nutrients and sediment being

deposited in the lake. The new control structure

diverts these contaminants away from the lake in

accordance with the original river flow pattern.

Improved water quality and recreational use

The results of the Big Stone Lake Restoration

Project are beginning to be realized in improved

water quality. Water sampling results have shown a

gradual but steady improvement in recent years.

The trophic status of the lake has changed from

hypereutrophic (extremely nutrient-rich) to

eutrophic (nutrient-rich). As a result, algae blooms

are less extensive and shorter in duration.

The fisheries of the lake also have improved

to the point that a national walleye circuit fishing

Attendance at State Parks on Big Stone Lake

Year Big Stone Lake Hartford Beach

State Park (MN) State Park (SD)

1986 to 1993 (avg.) 11,000 to 13,000 57,000 to 59,000

1994 15,500 55,000

1995 18,500 66,336

1996 25,000 61,994

1997 28,500 66,375

1998 33,700 72,000

1999 36,559 77,226

South Dakota
143

Management-Intensive Grazing Project:

Rotational Grazing Reduces Erosion, Increases Profits

Geddes, South Dakota

SOUTH DAKOTA

Contact:

John Deppe

Coordinator

Lower James RC&D

1820 North Kimball

Mitchell, SD 57301

605-996-1031

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• cattle grazing

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• management-intensive

grazing

Results:

• reduced erosion

(decreases sediment/

nutrients into water)

• increased farm profit

Farmers, ranchers, and all landowners who manage

grasslands in South Dakota face the dual challenges

of running a profitable business and sustaining a

quality grassland environment. Through the Management-Intensive Grazing Systems Project, initiated in July 1999 with support of 319 funding,

South Dakota grassland managers, grassland and

livestock organizations, and local, state, and federal

agencies are working together to design, implement, and monitor six “management-intensive”

grazing systems in South Dakota.

The “management-intensive” grazing method

focuses on a high (intensive) level of management; the term does not mean that the grassland

vegetation is grazed intensely (short). Management-intensive grazing systems often involve 15

or more pastures and short 2- or 3-day grazing

periods. Information learned from the on-ranch

demonstrations and from other producers using

this method is shared with other grassland managers, researchers, agency specialists, and the public.

Site example

In 2000 Mark Sip of Geddes, South Dakota,

began to use a 205-acre management-intensive

grazing system for his pastures. The pastures were

divided into 10 paddocks, ranging from 17 to 27

acres in size, with a stocking rate of 1.0 animal

unit months per acre. This is a safe stocking rate

under normal conditions using continuous seasonlong stocking.

Livestock water is supplied to the pastures by

a buried pipeline using rural water as the water

source. An aboveground pipeline serves as a

distribution system to the 10 paddocks. All division fences consist of polywire and temporary

fiberglass posts. Several of the paddocks use a

narrow lane to access the water tank. The fences

are moved as the cattle are rotated to fresh grass.

The entire area supports a plant community

composed of a mixture of cool season and warm

season native plants. Cool season plants dominate

the pastures. It is projected that the warm season

tournament is held annually at Big Stone Lake.

Attendance records at Big Stone Lake State Park

on the Minnesota side and Hartford Beach State

Park on the South Dakota side have documented

substantial increases in recreational use of the

lake, which correlate with improvements in water

quality (see table on previous page). Comments

made by lake residents indicate appreciation of

the water quality improvement that has occurred

to date.

www.state.sd.us/denr/watershed

South Dakota
144

native plants will benefit from the rests provided

and will begin to increase. This would provide a

higher-quality diet to the livestock during the hot

summer months.

Benefits realized

The environmental benefits offered by management-intensive grazing include improved grassland vegetation and streambank protection, resulting in significant reductions of water runoff that

carries nutrients and sediment.

Increased farm or ranch profit also results

from management-intensive grazing. Sip estimates

that although the initial cost of establishing a

rotational grazing program in his pastures was

approximately $1,560, the rotational grazing theoretically increased his revenue by $4,680. Not only

are farms capable of increasing their stocking

rates but they also can better stockpile grass for

winter grazing, which reduces the need to feed

hay and lowers total feed costs.

 Ghost River Land Acquisition Project:

 River Protected by Restoring Forested Wetlands

Grand Junction, Tennessee

TENNESSEE

Contact:

Reggie Reeves

Tennessee Department of

Environment and

Conservation

Division of Natural

Heritage

8th Floor, L&C Tower

Nashville, TN 37024

615-532-0434

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

• logging

• channelization

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• riparian reforestation

• wetland restoration

• cattle exclusion

Results:

• acquisition of more than

1,500 acres for longterm protection of

riparian and wetland

habitats

The Ghost River region of the Wolf River is part

of the larger Wolf River Conservation Initiative.

The Wolf River is an unchannelized river in west

Tennessee extending from the Mississippi-Tennessee state line in Fayette County to Memphis,

where it becomes channeled in Shelby County.

The Ghost River section begins at the bridge at

LaGrange and continues to Bateman’s bridge

approximately 10 miles to the west. This section

of the Wolf River features a meandering river

channel, a swamp forest where the river channel is

braided, and an open swamp lake. The banks and

parts of the river are forested, which provides

significant wildlife value. The overall water quality

is considered good because the river supports

many species of filter-feeding mussels.

The significance of the Ghost River region

relates to its unaltered channel, which supports

important forest communities in need of protection. These communities are bald cypress, water

tupelo, and bottomland hardwood forests. The

Wolf River has numerous recreational uses that

are compatible with natural area preservation.

They include hunting, fishing, canoeing, birding,

and other nature appreciation activities. Education

and research are encouraged and might be important parts of the management to restore bottomland hardwood forests and buffer areas.

Increasingly, land along the Wolf River is

being cleared of natural bottomland hardwoods

and other wetland vegetation. Much of the watershed is under agricultural production, which conwww.state.tn.us/agriculture/nps/index.html

Tennessee
145

tributes significantly to increased sedimentation in

the river and loss of riparian and wetland habitats.

In many places along the Wolf River, cattle access

the river and associated wetlands, causing additional erosion. Primary threats to the river include

forest fragmentation and erosion from logging,

channelization, contamination and erosion from

agricultural use, pollution caused by dumping, and

urban sprawl. There are also other threats, such as

noise and toxic pollution from motorboat use in

the swamp lake, off-road vehicle use, and the

introduction and spread of invasive exotic species.

Any use of invasive exotic plant species in food

plots in the adjacent Wildlife Management Area

could pose a threat.

A three-phase project

The Ghost River Initiative sought to prevent these

threats to the Ghost River section of the Wolf

River by acquiring land and establishing conservation easements to protect and enhance water

quality. The tracts identified for acquisition flood

annually and have a high potential for wetland and

riparian habitat restoration with associated water

quality improvement.

To accomplish riparian habitat conservation

and wetland habitat restoration on the Ghost

River, a three-phase project was developed. First,

property would be purchased. Second, with cooperating organizations, a plan would be developed

for thorough restoration of the tracts, including

riparian reforestation, wetland restoration, and

cattle exclusion. The third phase would involve

implementation of the restoration work in association with cooperating organizations. Support

for this project included $250,000 in section 319

funding, plus $284,755 in match.

Results and other efforts

More than 1,500 acres have been purchased in the

Ghost River section for long-term conservation

of the riparian and wetland habitats. These properties are, for the most part, adjacent to one another. The Ghost River Initiative represents one

of many conservation projects under way to

protect the Wolf River. Other efforts continue to

protect the area through acquisition, conservation

easements, registry agreements, or other forms of

cooperative management agreements.

Management and restoration plans for the

area are under development. Subject to other

funding, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Natural

Heritage, will complete a biodiversity field review

of the properties for use in the development of a

comprehensive management and restoration plan.

The restoration of bottomland hardwood

forested wetlands is important in Tennessee because of the decline in this category of wetland

habitats. Efforts will continue to ensure that this

unique river system is preserved in its natural state

for future generations of Tennesseans to enjoy.

Tennessee
146

Container nurseries account for an increasing

share of total nurseries in Middle Tennessee.

The nursery industry is concentrated in that

part of Tennessee and ranks in the top 10 agricultural industries in the state each year. Container nurseries traditionally apply large

amounts of pesticides and nutrients to the

nursery crops, which are susceptible to runoff

into surface waters. Collection ponds have been

used with some limited success, but pesticide or

nutrient residues can concentrate in the ponds

because little if any treatment to remove harmful substances is used.

Although constructed wetlands have not been

evaluated for use in container nurseries, Tennessee

Technology University’s Water Center has used

such wetlands to treat the town of Baxter’s wastewater, and the wetlands have been operating successfully for several years. This site was ideal for

incorporation of a container nursery to demonstrate constructed wetland treatments because the

nursery was in place and operational.

Project goals

The primary goal of the project was to demonstrate constructed wetlands as a cost-effective best

management practice to reduce pesticide and nutrient runoff and to purify water in container nurseries. The specific objectives were to (1) determine

removal rates of simazine, metolachlor, nitrogen,

 Using Constructed Wetlands to Clean Up Pesticides:

 Container Nurseries Will Benefit from Successful Pilot-Scale Study

Baxter, Tennessee

and phosphorus from container nursery runoff

using constructed wetland cells; (2) determine the

effect of vegetation (soft-stem bulrush), flow,

depth, and aspect of constructed wetlands on

herbicide and nutrient removal; and (3) design and

install a pilot-scale, subsurface-flow gravel constructed wetland at a container nursery grower’s site

for removal of herbicides and nutrients and for

demonstration to growers and other interested

parties.

In the spring and summer of 1998 and 1999,

a field study was conducted at the Baxter, Tennessee, wastewater treatment plant, where constructed wetland cells have been studied since

1992. A 450-square-meter container nursery with

overhead irrigation was built on-site. Water runoff

from the container nursery was pumped into 14

gravel subsurface-flow constructed wetland cells.

Bulrush (Scirpus validus) was grown in seven of the

cells, and seven cells had no plants. The wetland

cells were either 30 or 45 centimeters in depth.

Three loading rates of runoff water containing

herbicides and nutrients were added, corresponding to hydraulic retention times of 2 to 21 days.

The removal of herbicides (simazine and

metolachlor) and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in each of the constructed wetland cells

was calculated and correlated with bulrush vegetation, loading rates, depth of cell, and hydraulic

retention time.

TENNESSEE

Contact:

Dr. Kim Stearman

Tennessee Technological

University, Water Resources

Box 5033

Cookeville, TN 38505

931-372-3528

gkstearman@tntech.edu

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• container nurseries

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• pesticides

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• constructed wetland

Results:

• removal rates greater

than 80 percent for

herbicide, 90 percent for

nitrogen, and 85

percent for phosphate

www.state.tn.us/agriculture/nps/index.html

Tennessee
147

Promising results

Constructed wetland cells with plants removed

significantly more simazine, nitrogen, and phosphorus than cells without plants. Cells with plants

removed more metolachlor at 2- to 8-day retention

times, but at higher water retention times there was

no difference. Nitrogen removal was greater in the

cells 45 cm deep (89 percent) than in the cells 30

cm deep (76 percent). Depth did not affect herbicide or phosphorus removal. Removal of simazine

ranged from 57 to 96 percent, and metolachlor

removal ranged from 18 to 95 percent of that

applied; no significant difference in removal was

seen between the first year and second year of the

project. In constructed wetland cells with plants,

about 60 to 65 percent of herbicides were removed

at the high loading rate, which was equivalent to a

2- or 3-day hydraulic retention time. Increasing the

retention time to 8 or more days improved herbicide removals to above 80 percent in the cells with

plants. Nitrogen removal was greater than 90 percent in all vegetated cells. Phosphate removal was

greater than 85 percent in all vegetated cells except

one cell, which had the shortest retention time.

A newly constructed wetland might require

some time for plants to become established, thus

affecting removal efficiencies. The system at Baxter

was a mature system, with wetland bulrush plants

established since 1992 and plant densities greater

than 300 stems per square meter. A pilot, subsurfaceflow gravel constructed wetland has been installed at

a nursery in Smithville, Tennessee, and is being

evaluated for operation, maintenance, and removal

efficiencies. A workshop and demonstration of the

constructed wetland took place on October 24,

2000, at the Pirtle’s Nursery site. There was a good

turnout of nursery growers, and many of the growers showed a high interest in the technology.

Atrazine Problems in the Lake Aquilla and Marlin City

Lake System:

Farmers Take a Proactive Stance

Hillsboro and Marlin, Texas

TEXAS

Contact:

Donna Long

Texas State Soil and Water

Conservation Board

311 North 5th, P.O. Box 658

Temple, TX 76503

254-774-6044

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agricultural runoff

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• atrazine

Project Activities:

• agricultural BMPs (setbacks,

soil incorporation)

• information and education

on pesticide application

• well-water testing

Results:

• atrazine levels below

MCL in Lake Aquilla

Increasing levels of atrazine, a herbicide, in the water

supply caused concern among local citizens in the

Lake Aquilla and Marlin City Lake system area of

Texas. Atrazine levels exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) at Lake Aquilla, and the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

was imminent. The presence of atrazine in the water

supply was attributed to storm water runoff from

agricultural areas in the rural community.

Response of the locals

Local farmers took a proactive stance in response

to this water quality issue by forming the Producers’ Atrazine Action Committee. The primary goal

of the Committee was to reduce the presence of

atrazine in water supplies by encouraging producers to use the most economically feasible management practices conducive to the reduction of

atrazine-contaminated runoff. They developed a

www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/nps/index.html

Texas
148

list of recommended best management practices

(BMPs) for the watershed and had meetings with

pesticide dealerships to increase awareness at the

chemical supply level. The Committee developed

a questionaire to document adoption of BMPs

over time and administered it randomly in the

watershed.

The Stakeholders Group and Producers’ Atrazine Action Committee sponsored a public meeting

in December, featuring different speakers on water

quality topics and pesticide applicator training. Farmers began to implement various BMPs from the list

developed and recommended by the Committee,

some of which included observing more setback

area and incorporating atrazine into the soil to reduce herbicide runoff. Adoption of incorporation

has been estimated at 33 percent for this year, and

full adoption is expected within the next 3 years.

Role of education and outreach

Success could not have been achieved without

strong, locally organized education and outreach

efforts. As a result of such efforts, Lake Aquilla

has had eight consecutive quarters without a

violation of the atrazine MCL.

The Producers Atrazine Action Committee

also targeted groundwater quality awareness,

secondary to atrazine reduction, in their public

outreach and education campaign. The committee

promoted well-water testing through the

TEX*A*Syst program and recommended that

wells be tested for atrazine, bacteria, and nutrients.

Many well owners were able to learn about well

water disinfection processes, testing, filters, and

protection of groundwater quality. As a result, 28

wells in the county have been tested for bacteria,

nitrates, nitrites, sulfates, phosphates, and atrazine.

On-Farm Composting of Dairy Cattle Solid Waste:

Protecting Water Quality While Producing a Salable Product

Commerce, Texas (composting); Anderson/Houston SWCD, Palestine, Texas (marketing)

TEXAS

Contact:

Donna Long

Texas State Soil and Water

Conservation Board

311 North 5th, P.O. Box 658

Temple, TX 76503

254-774-6044

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (dairy)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• on-farm composting of

solid waste

Results:

• exporting pollutants offsite to low-risk areas

• economic gains

A section 319 grant was awarded to Texas A&M

University–Commerce to initiate a cattle solid waste

composting demonstration project on a 400-cow

freestall dairy. The outcome of this demonstration

resulted in the conversion of solid animal waste into

a value-added product suitable for high-end wholesale or retail markets. This product could be marketed in bulk for use in field, landscape, or nursery

applications or could be bagged for retail sales to the

homeowner market. Potential buyers of the compost

include landscapers, commercial nurseries, home and

garden centers, greenhouses, homeowners, farmers,

golf courses, cemeteries, public water works departments, road and highway contractors, schools, parks,

turf growers, and developers.

Advantages of in-vessel techniques

In-vessel composting has many advantages over

other composting techniques. The need to transport raw materials on public roads to a centralized

composting facility is eliminated when animal waste

is retained for on-farm composting. Rapid completion of the composting process, through in-vessel

composting, results in product stabilization and

www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/nps/index.html

Texas
149

sanitation within 3 to 4 days during any season of

the year. Raw waste material remains isolated from

the environment until the process is complete, and

the site manager has precise control of moisture,

temperature, and aeration during the composting

process, regardless of ambient weather conditions.

Another advantage is that raw waste loses all offensive odors within 12 hours of start-up. The resulting composted product is of superior quality and

suitable for high-end wholesale or retail markets.

Water quality and economic advantages

Water quality advantages followed as a result

of 8,000 pounds of nitrogen and 3,000 pounds

each of phosphorus and potassium being annually relocated and beneficially used in lowrisk areas. This demonstration project also

yielded a market price of $20.00 per cubic yard

(bulk) for the compost. Sale of the compost

provided the dairyman a total income of

$43,800, which resulted in an annual net income of $20,150.

Demonstrations have also shown that this

product can be substituted unilaterally for imported Canadian sphagnum peat moss in many

applications, including use as an alternative plantgrowing medium in greenhouses and as an organic

soil amendment in the landscape.

The Little Bear River watershed in Cache County,

Utah, is listed as a high-priority watershed that is

being adversely affected by nonpoint source

pollution. The watershed covers 196,432 acres.

Land use is approximately 70 percent range/

forest, 19 percent irrigated cropland, 7 percent

dry cropland, and 4 percent other. Land ownership is 85 percent private, 11 percent national

forests, and 4 percent state lands.

In 1990 the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) provided funding through the Hydrologic Unit Area Water Quality Program, giving

birth to the Little Bear River Project. The Little

Bear River Steering Committee was formed to

Little Bear River Project:

Voluntary Approaches Yield Success

Cache County, Utah

UTAH

Contact:

Jon Hardman

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

1860 North 100 East

North Logan, UT 84341

435-753-5616 (ext. 25)

jhardman@

utnorthlog.fsc.usda.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (croplands,

pasture, animal feeding

operations)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediments

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• stream channel and bank

restoration

• grazing land improvements

• animal waste management

systems

Results:

• reduced concentrations

of total phosphorus

• improved habitat for fish

and other aquatic

organisms

provide local leadership and oversight of the

watershed planning project. A technical advisory

committee consisting of local, state, and federal

resource agencies and representatives from Utah

State University was formed to assist the Little

Bear River Steering Committee with the watershed

assessment. The technical advisory committee

completed a watershed assessment in 1992.

The watershed assessment identified high

sediment loads from eroded stream banks, as well

as high nutrient and coliform loads from numerous animal feeding operations. Cropland and

pastures were also found to be significant sources

of nutrients in the Little Bear River watershed.

Utah

http://ag.utah.gov/mktcons/nps4.htm
150

Having identified the major causes of nonpoint

source pollution in the watershed, the local steering and technical advisory committees developed

the following project objectives:

• Reduce erosion from streambanks and

rangeland in critical areas.

• Reduce nutrient and sediment loading from

cropland, pasture, animal feeding operations, and rangeland.

• Inform and educate landowners within the

project boundary and the public of the

need to improve and maintain water quality

in the Little Bear River watershed.

• Monitor the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) and evaluate the

benefits of water quality improvements.

Promoting voluntary approaches in the

watershed

The overall project goal was to encourage landowners to implement conservation practices and

BMPs voluntarily to improve the quality of water

in the Little Bear River watershed. To make the

voluntary approach successful, a diverse group of

partners were invited to provide guidance and

input into project priorities and activities. To date,

more than 100 landowners have participated in

the project. An important component of the

project is the citizen volunteers. Local community

groups have donated more than 3,000 hours to

various projects.

In the early stages, watershed restoration

focused on stream channel and bank restoration

and on grazing land improvements. In 1994 more

emphasis was placed on improving animal waste

management systems. By 1998, 36 animal waste

management systems had been designed, and they

are currently in various stages of completion and

implementation. From 1991 to 1996, $1,507,000 in

section 319 funding was allocated to the watershed

effort.

Measurable improvements in water quality

Currently, 6 years after the initial watershed restoration efforts, measurable improvements in water

quality are being documented. There is a downward trend in total phosphorus concentrations in

the watershed. As more animal waste management

systems and BMPs are implemented, the downward trend is expected to continue. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan has been developed, and further reductions in nutrient loadings

will continue once the plan is implemented. The

TMDL will target and reduce point source loads

of phosphorus. By measuring the reduction of

total phosphorus from point sources, the reduction of nonpoint source pollution can be determined to assess the success of the 319-funded

projects.

Implementing BMPs throughout the watershed is also benefiting the aquatic community. In

some reaches of the watershed, meanders have

been restored in the stream channel. This work,

and other structural work to control bank erosion,

has improved habitat for fish and other aquatic

organisms. Angler use has increased in the watershed, and this success has piqued the interest of

other landowners in participating in the program.

Utah
151

Success in the Chalk Creek Watershed:

Reduced Phosphorus, Enhanced Habitat Result

Summit County, Utah

UTAH

Contact:

Shane Green

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

435-336-5853

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediments

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• fencing

• prescribed grazing

• revegetation

• stream channel stabilization

• sprinkler irrigation systems

Results:

• reduced concentrations

of total phosphorus

• enhanced aquatic

community

The Chalk Creek watershed in Summit County,

Utah, encompasses 173,000 acres. Roughly 123,500

acres is rangeland, 2,000 acres is used as cropland,

and 44,000 acres is forested. The watershed is 100

percent privately owned. Chalk Creek is a major

tributary and source of sediment and nutrients to

the Weber River, which supplies drinking water to

Ogden, Utah, and other Wasatch Front communities.

Because Chalk Creek is an important water

source and a recreational fishery, an intensive water

quality assessment was conducted in 1990 to identify

sediment and nutrient sources in the Chalk Creek

watershed. The results of the watershed assessment

indicated that the creek was impaired because of

habitat alteration and sediment. The total phosphorus level was also above the Utah State Division of

Water Quality Standards’ indicator value for the

beneficial use designation of a cold-water fishery.

Utah officially placed the stream on its 303(d) list of

impaired waters. EPA approved the Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL) plan in 1997. Between 1991

and 1999, $1,673,000 in section 319 funding was

allocated to the watershed effort.

High local support for restoring watershed

In 1991 the local soil conservation district, landowners, water users, and resource managers initiated the

Chalk Creek Nonpoint Source Water Quality Project

to address the water quality impairment of Chalk

Creek. By 1994 a coordinated watershed resource

plan had been developed and a technical advisory

committee, composed of local, state, and federal

agencies, private individuals, and groups, had been

formed to assist the local steering committee.

The primary goal of the Chalk Creek

Nonpoint Source Water Quality Project was to

reduce erosion and sedimentation entering the

creek. Methods identified to reduce erosion in

Chalk Creek were stabilization of streambanks,

restoration of riparian vegetation, and improved

rangeland vegetation to reduce overland runoff.

There was a high level of landowner support

in the Chalk Creek watershed. By 1997 many of the

100 major watershed landowners, working with the

Natural Resources Conservation Service and other

agencies, had begun designing resource management system plans and restoration projects. A

typical Chalk Creek restoration project consists of

fencing off the riparian zone on one or both sides

of the creek, followed by implementing a rotational

grazing management plan. Some projects address

eroding banks by installing stream barbs or meanders in stream reaches that were historically

straightened. Most restoration projects on Chalk

Creek include planting willows at degraded sites.

The most successful projects have natural willow

regeneration on newly created floodplain deposition zones. The table summarizes the BMPs that

Utah

http://ag.utah.gov/mktcons/nps4.htm
152

have been implemented in various projects in the

Chalk Creek watershed.

The payoff: reduced phosphorus in watershed

The landowners’ cooperation and implementation

of restoration projects have reduced the concentrations of total phosphorus in Chalk Creek.

Results from water quality monitoring indicate

that total phosphorus concentrations in Chalk

Creek are lower for the time period of 1990 to

1999 than for the time period of 1978 to 1989

(see figure). It is expected that total phosphorus

concentrations will further decrease as more

restoration projects are

completed and landowner resource management systems are implemented.

Implementing best

management practices

(BMPs) throughout the

watershed has enhanced

the aquatic community,

with emphasis on the

fishery populations. Reduced sediment from

eroding banks and riparian areas has improved

fish spawning and macroinvertebrate habitat.

Placing willow plantings and adding in-stream log

and rock features as flow-directing structures have

provided fish resting habitat in addition to bank

stability. As more BMPs are implemented

throughout the watershed, the benefits to water

quality and the aquatic community will continue

to increase. A noteworthy indicator of success is

the presence of a population of pure strain

Bonneville cutthroat trout in the watershed.

Best Management Practices Implemented in the

Chalk Creek Watershed

Best management practice Amount completed

Brush management 1,479 acres

Riparian fencing 13,128 feet

Rangeland fencing 8,842 feet

Stock watering 3 units

Streambank protection 3,801 feet

Streambank vegetation 3,652 feet

Stream channel stabilization 8,655 feet

Prescribed grazing 15,443 acres

Sprinkler irrigation systems 1,118 acres

Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Chalk Creek (at Highway 189 in

Coalville)

Utah
153

Flow Restoration Below Hydroelectric Facilities:

Relicensing Offers Opportunity to Increase Stream Flows

Statewide

VERMONT

Contact:

Jeff Cueto

Vermont Agency of Natural

Resources

Water Quality Division

Building 10 North

103 South Main Street

Waterbury, VT 05671

802-241-3770

jeffc@dec.anr.state.vt.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• hydroelectric development

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• reviewing/commenting on

relicensing applications

Results:

• improved aquatic habitat

• increased wastewater

assimilative capacity

• enhanced recreational

use for swimming,

fishing, and boating

• elevated dissolved

oxygen levels

• reduced turbidity and

suspended sediment

The impacts of hydroelectric development on

Vermont streams were documented in a 1988

report titled Hydropower in Vermont: An Assessment

of Environmental Problems and Opportunities, the first

comprehensive environmental study of Vermont’s

62 older hydroelectric projects. Artificial regulation of natural stream flows and the lack of adequate minimum stream flows at these sites were

found to have reduced to a large extent the success of the state’s initiatives to restore the beneficial uses and values for which the affected waters

are managed. Slightly more than three-fourths of

the hydroelectric projects studied were found to

be adversely affecting the streams on which they

were located. The substantial advances being

made to clean up Vermont’s rivers were being

stymied by this flow regulation problem.

The project

Since 1991 Vermont has used section 319 funding

to support the Department of Environmental

Conservation’s (DEC) participation in the process

of relicensing hydroelectric projects (under Clean

Water Act section 401 authority). In doing so,

DEC has developed positions on relicensing

applications, influencing the preparation of conditions for future operation of the facilities to support desired multiple uses of the affected waters.

Activities have also included evaluating the regulation of reservoir levels and downstream flows as

related to the support of recreational uses, aquatic

habitat, and aesthetics, as well as erosion of reservoir/impoundment shorelines and downstream

riverbanks.

Site-specific successes

Given the technical and social complexities of

relicensing, and in spite of several appeal proceedings, numerous accomplishments are a direct

result of the focus provided by section 319. A few

key examples illustrate these accomplishments:

• The Clyde River Project was denied certification because of a project dam that degrades habitat and impedes migration of

landlocked salmon from Lake

Memphremagog. DEC subsequently

worked with several parties to complete

dam removal and restore this reach of the

river, which was accomplished in 1996.

• Projects occurring in the Passumpsic,

Black, and Ottauquechee Rivers (Connecticut River Drainage) were relicensed subject

to a “run-of-river conversion,” requiring

inclusion of special recreation and landscaping plans, bypass flows, and downstream fish passage.

Vermont

www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/wqdhome.htm
154

• The Center Rutland Project (Otter Creek,

Lake Champlain Drainage) was relicensed

after issuance of a water quality certification.

The project is now being operated under a

new flow management plan that includes

spillage to improve bypass habitat, aesthetics,

and dissolved oxygen concentrations in

Rutland’s wastewater management zone.

Expected results

Expected benefits from this nonpoint

source implementation strategy include improved

aquatic habitat; increased wastewater assimilative

capacity; enhanced recreational uses for swimming, fishing, and boating; elevated dissolved

oxygen levels; and reduced turbidity and suspended sediment.

Lake Champlain Basin Watershed Project:

Significant Pollutant Reductions Achieved

Franklin County, Vermont

VERMONT

Contact:

Rick Hopkins

Vermont Agency of Natural

Resources

Water Quality Division

Building 10 North

103 South Main Street

Waterbury, VT 05671

802-241-3770

rickh@dec.anr.state.vt.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (dairy)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

• bacteria

Project Activities:

• livestock exclusion fencing

• alternative water supplies

• armored or bridged livestock

stream crossings

• bioengineering streambank

stabilization practices

Results:

• reductions in

phosphorus, nitrogen,

suspended solids, and

indicator bacteria

• improved

macroinvertebrate

community

Lake Champlain, the nation’s sixth-largest freshwater lake, is undergoing cultural eutrophication

due to excessive phosphorus loads. About 71

percent of the lake’s average annual phosphorus

load of 647 metric tons comes from nonpoint

sources, and two-thirds of this load is estimated to

come from agricultural land in the basin.

Over the past several decades, efforts to

reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution in

Vermont have focused on improving animal waste

management in the state’s predominantly dairy

agriculture. Construction of manure storage

structures, barnyard runoff management, and

adoption of waste utilization plans to avoid winter

spreading of manure have been widely encouraged under a variety of federal and state costshare and technical assistance programs. However,

dairy cows traditionally spend half of the year

away from the barn on pasture, and impacts on

water quality from livestock grazing have not been

addressed in previous nonpoint source reduction

programs. Free access to streams and streambanks

by livestock is commonplace in Vermont. Direct

deposition of waste into streams, destruction of

riparian vegetation, and trampling of streambanks

and streambeds all represent important sources of

sediment, nutrients, and bacteria to surface waters

in Vermont.

Paired watershed study

The Lake Champlain Basin Watershed Project was

initiated in 1994, as one of the projects composing

the Section 319 Nonpoint Source National MoniA bridge was constructed to allow cows to cross

the stream without contributing to streambank

erosion.

Vermont

www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/wqdhome.htm
155

toring Program (http://

h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/

319index.html), to evaluate the

effectiveness of grazing management, livestock exclusion, and

streambank protection as tools for

controlling nonpoint source pollution in small agricultural watersheds. The project used a paired

watershed design, using two treatment watersheds

and a control watershed, to track changes over a 7-

year period. Contributing partners included the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources

Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Franklin County Natural Resource Conservation District, and participating watershed agricultural landowners.

In 1997, following a

3-year monitoring/

calibration period, a

number of land treatments were applied

throughout the

Samsonville Brook and

Godin Brook watersheds. The treatments

included livestock exclusion fencing, alternative

water supplies, armored

or bridged livestock

stream crossings, and bioengineering streambank

stabilization practices (with brushrolls, tree revetments, and willow plantings).

Maintenance was not a major problem for the

treatments; only normal fence maintenance was

required. Water supply was an obvious concern

following livestock exclusion from stream reaches,

but the project was fortunate in that alternative

supplies could be exploited relatively simply at all

sites. In a limited way, the project demonstrated

some success in using pasture pumps to provide

water for beef cattle, but water for dairy cows is a

serious operational issue to be considered in future

applications.

The bioengineering installations appeared to

work well, as demonstrated by rapid and strong

growth of planted willows and native riparian

zone vegetation throughout the treatment period.

Brushrolls survived high flows very well and

appeared to perform their function of trapping

sediment, supporting new vegetation growth, and

protecting streambanks.

Confirmed pollutant reduction

Three years of post-treatment monitoring was completed in November 2000. The final results confirm

significant reductions in phosphorus, nitrogen,

suspended solids, and indicator bacteria in response

to treatment (see table). Biomonitoring data also

suggested improvements in the macroinvertebrate

community, particularly due to riparian zone protection. Although no significant improvements in fish

assemblages were observed, physical habitat improvements were noted in the treated sections of

both Samsonville Brook and Godin Brook. Overall,

the project was successful in demonstrating that

practical, low-technology, low-cost practices can yield

significant improvements in water quality.

Average Documented Pollutant

Reductions Over Three Posttreatment Years in Samsonville

Brook

Total phosphorus -15%

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen -12%

Total suspended solids -34%

Total phosphorus export -49%

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen export -38%

Total suspended solids export -28%

E. coli -29%

Fecal coliform bacteria -38%

Fecal streptococcus -40%

Conductance -11%

Temperature -6%

Exclusion fencing, requiring only normal

fence maintenance, is a simple way to keep

livestock from degrading streambanks.

Healthy vegetation along streambanks protects water

quality by preventing erosion and filtering nutrients.

Vermont
156

Cabin Branch Mine Orphaned Land Project:

Flora and Fauna Benefit from Mine Reclamation

Prince William County, Virginia

VIRGINIA

Contact:

Carol Pollio

Chief, Division of Resource

Management

18100 Park Headquarters Rd.

Triangle, VA, 22172

703-221-4322

Carol_pollio@nps.gov

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• acid mine drainage

• overfarming

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• heavy metal

concentrations

• low pH

• sediment

Project Activities:

• storm water diversion from

mine site

• dredging spoil materials

• sealing shafts

• covering mine spoil

• revegetation

Results:

• decrease in heavy metals

(copper, zinc, and iron)

• decrease in sulfate levels

• improvements in fish

community (taxa and

individual numbers)

Virginia’s Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Management Program has long recognized the need to

improve surface and ground water quality by reducing nonpoint source pollution associated with

abandoned and orphaned mineral mines. Virginia’s

Department of Conservation and Recreation’s

Division of Soil and Water, which administers the

NPS Management Program, recently had the

unique opportunity to partner with the Virginia

Department of Mining, Minerals and Energy’s

Orphaned Lands Program to support several innovative reclamation projects to achieve improved

surface and ground water quality.

From 1890 to the early 1920s, Cabin Branch

Mine operated at a site along Quantico Creek, a

tributary of the Potomac River, in Prince William

County, Virginia. Large by Virginia standards, the

mine had 200 to 300 people working aboveground

and up to 2,400 feet belowground at any given

time, excavating pyrite for use in the production

of sulfuric acid.

In 1933 the Civilian Conservation Corps obtained the abandoned mine and its surrounding land,

and it is now part of Prince William Forest Park.

The park’s 18,633 acres cover a major portion of the

Quantico Creek watershed and contain one of the

few remaining piedmont forest ecosystems in the

National Park System. The area had been heavily

farmed for tobacco since colonial times, leaving the

soil degraded and subject to intense erosion. Since

the area was acquired by the National Park Service,

the native forest has been allowed to reclaim the

overfarmed and exhausted landscape. However, the

area incorporating the mine site was not able to

revegetate naturally because highly acidic mine

tailings were inhibiting growth.

Water quality in Quantico Creek just downstream was severely compromised because of the

acid mine drainage and heavy metal contamination. During rain and storm events, surface water

mobilized and carried oxidized sulphur compounds and acidic material into the creek. The

resulting impacts on the water quality of the creek

were low pH, high conductivity, and significant

sediment loading.

Multiple funding sources

After years of coordination between the National

Park Service, Geologic Resources Division and

Water Resources Division; Virginia Department

of Mines, Minerals and Energy; and the natural

resources staff at Prince William Forest Park, the

Cabin Branch Mine site was reclaimed in 1995. In

addition to section 319 funding, support was

provided through a grant from the National Park

Service’s Water Resources Division, and the balance was covered by Virginia’s Orphaned Land

Program administered by the Virginia Department

of Mines, Minerals and Energy’s Division of

Mineral Mining.

www.dcr.state.va.us/sw/npsupdt.htm

Virginia
157

The primary goal of the Cabin Branch Mine

Orphaned Land Project was to improve the water

quality of the downstream reach of Quantico

Creek contaminated by acid drainage and heavy

metals. Additional goals included making the site

safer for park visitors and restoring native vegetation. Reclamation plans included diverting storm

water away from the mine site to limit acidification of off-site storm waters, sealing all shafts so

surface water would not enter mine workings or

groundwater, covering mine spoil materials with a

good soil medium, and revegetating all disturbed

areas with tolerant grasses and legume species. All

of these actions were designed to reduce acid

mine drainage discharges, thereby reducing heavy

metal concentrations in the surface waters.

Benefits to water quality and aquatic life

Water chemistry monitoring of Quantico Creek

was conducted before and after reclamation of

the Cabin Branch Mine site to quantify the success

of the reclamation project. Initial water sampling

taken after reclamation activities were completed

showed a marked decrease in the presence of

heavy metal contamination in Quantico Creek. A

2-year monitoring program conducted by George

Mason University (see table) recently confirmed

that levels of copper, zinc, and iron in the stream

have been appreciably reduced since project

completion; sulfate levels and conductance have

also improved. In addition, remotely sensed images taken by the US Army Corps of Engineers

before and after reclamation visually illustrate the

elimination of acid materials from the creek itself.

The George Mason study also included fish and

invertebrate sampling of the stream. The fish

community in the downstream reach has increased

in both number of taxa and number of individuals since the project was completed. Results of

invertebrate monitoring are inconclusive because

of large population fluctuations during the monitoring period.

The park’s resource management staff also

teamed up with U.S. Geological Survey staff to

initiate a monitoring and research study to investigate the effects of storm water retention ponds,

created during the reclamation project to minimize acid mine drainage from the site, on breeding amphibians. Although low pH levels and heavy

metal concentrations in the surface water retention ponds have been shown to negatively affect

amphibian reproduction, results of this study

confirm that the ponds are doing what they were

designed to do—trap contaminants from surface

mine drainage and keep it from reaching Quantico

Creek.

The public outreach activities integral to the

project continue to be a success. Community

involvement was high, and at the end of the

project 150 volunteers gathered at the reclamation

site to plant 5,000 native trees and shrubs. This

effort will help further stabilize the streambank

and assist in restoring native forest to previously

bare ground.

Water Quality Data Before and After Reclamation,

Cabin Branch Mine

Element Pre-Reclamation Post-Reclamation

Concentration Concentration

Copper 0.06 mg/L 0.0010–0.012 mg/L

Iron 0.49 mg/L 0.18–1.20 mg/L

Sulfate 590.0 mg/L 10.0–30.0 mg/L

Zinc 0.32 mg/L 0.05–0.12 mg/L

Virginia
158

Toncrae Mine Orphaned Land Project:

Mine Site Reclamation Increases Species Diversity

Floyd County, Virginia

VIRGINIA

Contact:

Allen Bishop

Department of Mines,

Minerals, and Energy

P.O. Box 3727

Charlottesville, VA 22903

804-951-6317

dab@mme.state.va.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• acid mine drainage

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• heavy metal

concentrations (copper)

Project Activities:

• diversion of water from

mine site

• sealing of all mine shafts

• regrading mine spoil

materials

• constructed wetlands

Results:

• reduced copper levels

• improved invertebrate

community

• reestablishment of native

brook trout

The Toncrae Mine in southern Floyd County operated as a copper mine intermittently from the late

1700s to 1947. The abandoned mine had severely

degraded East Prong Creek with acid mine drainage and heavy metal contamination. Barren mine

tailings, underground seeps, open mine shafts, and

old ore processing areas contributed to the deposition of large concentrations of heavy metals into

the creek, a tributary of the Little River. At one bog

site, copper was measured at levels thousands of

times greater than the limits set by EPA. In addition, upland areas surrounding the mine were

barren of vegetation because of contaminated and

inhospitable soil conditions. Reclamation of the

Toncrae Mine site was considered a high priority

because of the excessive pollutant levels, the numerous open mine shafts, and perhaps most important, the high potential for successful recovery of

the site.

Innovative solutions

Beginning in 1993, Phase I of the reclamation

included diverting unpolluted waters away from the

mine site to limit effluent discharge, sealing all mine

shafts, regrading mine spoil materials, constructing

wetlands to treat mine seepage, and revegetating all

disturbed areas with tolerant grasses and legume

species. Sixteen shafts were capped and sealed, and

mine markers were installed.

An innovative wetland system was also designed to naturally filter out the heavy metals

before they reached the surface waters of East

Prong Creek. Contaminated discharge from 16

shafts and 6 spoils dumps is routed through 6 cells

of constructed wetland, 5 of which filter the

drainage through bark and straw mulch, and then

limestone, before discharging into the next cell.

Within the cells anaerobic sulfate-reducing bacteria remove toxic heavy metals, while cattails, reeds,

and other wetland plant species also contribute to

metal uptake, providing a future source of nutrients for the bacteria. The treated water is finally

discharged into East Prong Creek.

Phase II of the Toncrae Mine Orphaned

Land Project was initiated in 1997 in response to

continued chemical monitoring of the constructed

wetlands. Monitoring results indicated that two of

the wetland cells were not functioning as well as

desired in the winter months. The goal of Phase

II was to reconfigure the wetland design to increase detention time and improve performance.

This phase of the project also included continued

chemical monitoring to quantify success.

The reconfiguration of the constructed wetlands was required because the drainage was being

oxygenated too rapidly in the winter months because of higher-than-expected flows, combined

with cooler temperatures. Because of the rapid

www.dcr.state.va.us/sw/npsupdt.htm

Virginia
159

oxygenation, the system was unable to maintain the

anaerobic conditions that the sulfate-reducing

bacteria required to adequately break down the

metals in solution. The first step of Phase II involved increasing the size of the two problem cells.

The effect was to create one large wetland cell from

the previous two, thereby increasing detention time

and the overall time the drainage remains in an

anaerobic state. Next, another much larger wetland

cell was constructed below the existing cells to

further increase detention time. Finally, an anoxic

drain was installed to reduce oxygen levels entering

the system and assist the wetlands in functioning in

an anaerobic state.

Successful results

Invertebrate sampling conducted before reclamation showed the invertebrate population of East

Prong Creek to be severely affected below the

Toncrae Mine site. Both the number of species and

the total number of organisms were significantly

lower than those recorded at a reference site located upstream from the mine and its toxic effluent

(see figure). After project completion, copper levels

were appreciably reduced: copper concentrations

ranged from 9 to 32 micrograms per liter (mg/L)

before the project and between 0.1 and 14 mg/L

after the project. The invertebrate community

showed signs of a rapid recovery. Within months

of project completion, both the number of invertebrate taxa and the number of individuals were

approaching reference site conditions.

Monitoring for Phase II continued through

1998. Chemical monitoring of the wetlands indicated that since reconfiguration, the wetlands are

successfully removing metals, even in the cool

temperatures of fall and winter.

The success of this project led the Virginia

Wildlife Federation to award its 1995 Mineral

Conservationist of the Year Award to the Virginia

Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy’s

Division of Mineral Mining. The award was

granted for the successful rehabilitation of the

Toncrae Mine site and East Prong Creek. The

nomination for the award notes that “the creek

now has a healthy animal life with growing diversity, and the revegetated land surface is now a

camping and picnic ground.”

The long-range goal of the Toncrae

Mine Orphaned Land Project was a return of

the native brook trout to the contaminated

stream section below the mine site. According to residents, no fish had been seen in the

contaminated section of East Prong stream

in years. Biologists with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries confirmed that although brook trout did inhabit

the stream above the Toncrae Mine site, they

did not occur downstream of the site. However, recent surveys conducted by the

Department’s fisheries biologists verify that

since reclamation was completed, brook trout

have successfully moved into East Prong

Creek below the abandoned mine site.

Virginia
160

Virgin Islands Partnership:

Alternative Treatment Systems Prevent Contamination of Coastal Waters

U.S. Virgin Islands

VIRGIN ISLANDS

Contact:

Syed A. Syedali

Environmental Engineer

Department of Planning

and Natural Resources

45 Mars Hill

Frederiksted, VI 00840-4474

340-778-2994

ssyeda@viaccess.net

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• failing septic systems

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• nutrients

• pathogens

Project Activities:

• alternative treatment

systems installed

Results:

• effectively controlled

discharge of residential

wastewater

Preservation of coastal water quality is critical in the

U.S. Virgin Islands, where tourism is the main industry. Public sewer systems do not extend throughout

the islands, and there is a large dependency on conventional septic tank/seepage pit systems. Unfortunately, the hilly terrain of the islands, the shallow

soils, and in many instances the dense residential

development are factors that contribute to the failure

of conventional systems and subsequent discharge

of improperly treated waste.

The Virgin Islands Department of Planning

and Natural Resources (DPNR), through a study

conducted by Kimball-Chase, documented that a

major source of contamination of beaches and

other coastal areas in the U.S. Virgin Islands is

failing septic systems. These widely used units are

failing because they lack the 2 to 3 feet of pervious soil through which effluent should pass to be

properly treated.

An innovative solution

To remedy this problem, DPNR and the University

of the Virgin Islands (UVI) entered into a partnership. DPNR asked the public for proposals for the

design and installation of affordable alternative

systems that would treat residential wastewater

using nonmechanical means and would require

minimal maintenance. Two of the designs submitted were selected, and the systems were installed at

two residences where conventional systems had

failed to meet treatment needs. The new systems

used a series of closed cells filled with gravel and

soil in which plants with high water uptake rates

were planted. In addition, the systems blended in

with the topography of the sites and were installed

in such a way that they enhanced the appearance of

the properties.

DPNR observed the installation of the systems, and UVI closely monitored their performance for a 6-month period following their installation. Plants thrived in the systems, and it was

interesting to note that at one site exotic flowers

fared better than anywhere else on the island. No

discharge of effluent from the systems, odor, or

any other unpleasant effects were recognized at

either site. Effluent quality was found to improve

as it passed through the systems. Most significantly, because no discharge was ever noted, the

surrounding environment was never threatened.

The pilot alternative systems for treatment of

residential wastewater have a high potential for

reducing the pollution threat to the fragile coastal

ecosystems of the Virgin Islands. Thus far, they

have proven to be affordable to install, effective,

and easy to maintain. The systems are being

closely monitored to assess their performance

over an extended period.

Because of the high public interest in these

systems, DPNR has developed a handbook available to the public to guide in their design, conVirgin Islands

www.viczmp.com/czmprograms.html
161

struction, and use. DPNR is also proposing

regulations that would permit use of these systems in areas where sensitive environmental

factors preclude the installation of conventional

septic tank systems. The innovative systems have

the potential to maintain high environmental

quality for present and future generations in the

U.S. Virgin Islands.

Best Management Practices on Model Horse Farms:

Farm Plan Management Reduces Nutrients and Sediment

King County, Washington

WASHINGTON

Contact:

Heidi Wachter

King County Department of

Natural Resources

Water and Land

Development Division

hwachter@u.washington.edu

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• horse farms

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

Project Activities:

• farm plan management

(pasture management,

manure management,

mud management, wildlife

enhancement, stream

corridor management)

Results:

• 84 percent decrease in

TSS from grass filter strips

• 35 to 85 percent

pollutant reductions

from paddocks

“Implementation and Evaluation of Livestock

Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs)

on Model Horse Farms” was a joint project between the King County Water and Land Resources

Division (formerly Surface Water Management)

and the King County Conservation District. King

County has nearly 9,000 farms, housing between

30,000 and 40,000 horses. Some 600 of those

farms are near Class 1 and 2 streams, and even

more have drainage systems that flow to nearby

streams, lakes, or wetlands. The primary goal of the

project, which received $85,000 in 319 grant funding for the years 1995 to 1998, was to promote

education and technical assistance to horse and

farm owners with the Model Farm Project.

Model farms were selected in 11 watersheds

throughout the county, and farm plans were

implemented on 12 different sites. Farms were

selected based in part on their ability to function

as an education site and the owner’s experience

and interest in providing a role model for other

horse and farm owners. Also, geographic location,

potential for improvement, and the owner’s willingness to implement and maintain the elements

of the farm plan were important factors.

Education and technical assistance on model

farms

For the 12 farms selected, costs for materials and

labor associated with implementation were funded

through a cost share, and the farm plan expenses

were covered by funds from the farm owner and

the 319 grant. Cost-shared farm plan elements

included materials for composting facilities, fencing, pasture and hay land planting, and paddock

areas.

Education concentrated on encouraging

implementation of four BMPs—pasture management, manure management, mud management,

and wildlife enhancement, including stream corridor management. Between 1995 and 1998, a series

of education and outreach activities took place,

including 10 tours, 13 education sessions, 12

outreach events, farm-related events, and presentations. They reached more than 5,000 horse and

small farm owners in King County.

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/index.html

Washington
162

Real results

Support, encouragement, and a sustainable connection with the farmers were critical and resulted

in full implementation of the farm plan BMPs on

each of the 12 farms. The education activities not

only promoted proper management practices but

also encouraged a sense of stewardship for

aquatic resources in the respective basins. But the

clear results stem from the post-BMP implementation assessment.

 The two BMPs chosen for assessment purposes were use of wood waste as a winter paddock footing material and use of grass filter strips

for the treatment of surface runoff from winter

paddocks. There was a reduction in pollutant

concentrations after BMP implementation for all

nutrients monitored except nitrite/nitrate/nitrogen. Despite this increase, consideration of the

dissolved oxygen concentration after BMP implementation indicates that toxic nitrite levels would

be unlikely because nitrite is rapidly broken down

to nontoxic nitrate when a high dissolved oxygen

content is present. Reductions in all other measured pollutants ranged from 35 to 85 percent.

A Moo-ving Approach to Dairy Waste Management:

Fecal Coliform Pollution Reduced in Whatcom County

Whatcom County, Washington

WASHINGTON

Contact:

Mak Kaufman

Bellingham Field Office

Department of Ecology

360-738-6248

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• dairy farms

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• fecal coliform bacteria

Project Activities:

• dairy farmer outreach/

education

• BMPs to control manure

• fencing

Results:

• fecal coliform loads

down 21 percent

The goal of the “Watershed-Based Approach to

Dairy Waste Management” is to lower dairyrelated levels of fecal coliform bacteria and other

manure-associated contaminants in a watershed

without alienating the dairy industry. The project,

which is coordinated by the Washington State

Department of Ecology, has received $90,000 in

319 funding for the past 3 years to improve water

quality. The project has focused on Whatcom

County in the northwest corner of Washington

State, which borders British Columbia. To fully

grasp the nature of the problem, consider that

every adult milk cow produces the equivalent

waste of 22 humans. There are some 69,000 cows

(or the equivalent of 1.5 million people) in

Whatcom County. This figure does not even

account for the stock (about 30,000 cows) used to

replace older, non-milk-producing cows.

Monitoring to target priorities

The Department of Ecology partnered with the

Northwest Indian College to monitor fecal

coliform levels bimonthly. In addition to the

inspections of the state’s dairy farms that are

required by law, the consistent monitoring data

collected by the college for this and other 319-

funded projects have helped determine which

subbasin tributaries have the highest levels of

fecal coliform loading. Subsequently, reinspections

are being conducted in those areas to determine

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/index.html

Washington
163

whether the pollution is related to nearby dairies.

Then the detected problems can be corrected.

The fecal data collected by the Northwest Indian

College are posted on the college’s web site and

cover all of the subbasin tributaries of the

Nooksack River, as well as sites in the Drayton

Harbor/Portage Bay areas. The web site is at

www.nwic.edu.

Farm plans and agreements

Once the basins with the highest loading have

been identified, the Department of Ecology

inspects the area farmers’ milking facilities, as well

as all of the off-site replacement stock operations.

Most of the problems have been found at the offsite locations because farmers typically do not

invest as much time, attention, or money in those

locations as they do in their primary milking facilities. Outreach and education are vital, and farmers

are referred to the Whatcom County Conservation District for farm planning and technical

assistance. These referrals, together with education and outreach, have encouraged farmers all

over the county to implement best management

practices (BMPs) such as long-term waste storage

facilities, manure solids separators, rainwater

gutters and downspouts, agronomic manure field

applicator schedules, and fencing to keep livestock

out of streams.

Although the Department of Ecology’s goal

is to increase compliance rather than to impose

penalties, about $200,000 in fines have been

imposed on roughly 4 percent of the dairy farmers in the county. Notices of Correction, an

informal non-penalty means of enforcement for

potential discharge problems, are used amply.

The Department of Ecology issued about 75

notices as preventive solutions between July 1998

and June 2000.

As an additional measure, the Department of

Ecology has recently signed an agreement with

the Governor’s office. This new agreement calls

for a reduction of 15 percent per year in the fecal

coliform loads as compared with the loads reported by the Department of Ecology’s 1996 to

1998 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) fecal

coliform monitoring study.

Real results

Although much work remains to be completed in

terms of controlling nonpoint sources of contamination on dairy farms in Whatcom County,

the current dairy inspection program has brought

unprecedented change in the way dairy farmers

operate their farms. The Department of Ecology’s

new approach to working with dairy farmers,

particularly with respect to implementing BMPs, is

still enforcement-oriented but also has struck a

good balance with education and outreach. Fair

but firm enforcement, both formal and informal,

has helped break down the image of the enforcing

agency as an enemy.

Upgrades to control pollution to date have been

completed through partnerships established between

the Department of Ecology, the Whatcom Conservation District, and the Whatcom County office of

the Natural Resources Conservation Service. By

working together, the partners have achieved impressive results. As of the last quarter of 1999, fecal

coliform loads in the Bertrand/Fishtrap Creek

subbasin were down 21 percent, and they are expected to drop further during the fall.

Washington
164

Sediment Reduction in Yakima River Basin:

People Become Stewards of Their Own Watershed

Yakima River Basin, Washington

WASHINGTON

Contact:

Marie Zuroske

South Yakima Conservation

District

509-837-7911

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• furrow irrigation in

agricultural fields

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• conversion to sprinklers

and drip irrigation

• other sediment reduction

practices (PAM application)

Results:

• 30 percent reduction in

sediment load in the

Moxee Drain

• decrease in total

suspended solids (86

percent in subbasin 10 and

56 percent in subbasin 5)

Since 1994 the Yakima

Conservation District

and Department of

Ecology, along with

many other groups,

have been working to

reduce sediment in the

Yakima River Basin in

eastern Washington

State, including the

Moxee Drain, Granger

Drain, and Sulphur

Creek Drain. The

primary problem has

been furrow irrigation,

most notably on hops

farms. This method of

irrigation is notorious

for causing sediment flow and also for introducing

poisonous pesticides like DDT into the water. In

1994 furrowed irrigation was delivering 100 tons of

sediment and pesticides per acre per year into the

water. There are about 19,000 acres of irrigated

land in the watershed.

In late 1993 the North Yakima Conservation

District received 319 funding, and in 1996–1997,

the South Yakima Conservation District also

received 319 funding to work on the problem

from the south. In the past several years, the

Department of Ecology has begun to work on

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) on the

Yakima River watershed in its entirety. By 1997 a

30 percent reduction in sediment load had been

achieved in the Moxee Drain alone, and drip

irrigation had been implemented on more than

2,000 acres of farmland.

Sulphur Creek progress

Sulphur Creek is a tributary of the Yakima River

and one of the three major irrigation return flows

in the Yakima Valley. It receives runoff from

about 41,500 acres of irrigated agricultural land in

the Sulphur Creek Basin. In 1997 the South

Yakima Conservation District received 319 funding to implement best management practices

(BMPs) in two subbasins of the watershed. Thirty

farmers applied for technical and financial assistance in implementing these practices, and 16 of

the proposals (covering 679 acres) were accepted.

The primary method used to reduce sediment

loads due to furrow irrigation is implementing

more efficient drip irrigation methods, such as

sprinklers. Site-specific BMPs were designed with

the individual landowners. In one case, the demonstration included application of polyacrylamide

(PAM) through a central pivot irrigation system.

PAM is a coagulating agent that when used in

irrigation causes better soil saturation and less

runoff in the fields. The combination of these

two management practices was new in this area.

Monitoring was conducted to measure the

effects of installing the BMPs. Samples were

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/index.html

Sulphur Creek is

a tributary of the

Yakima River and

receives runoff

from about

41,500 acres of

agricultural land.

After the installation of BMPs,

subbasins reported decreases in TSS

of as much as 86 percent.

Washington
165

collected at about 15 sites in the two subbasins

from June 1997 through October 1999. One

subbasin registered a decrease in total suspended

solids of 86 percent, and the other subbasin

showed a decrease of 56 percent.

The big picture

One of the primary goals of these combined 319-

funded projects was to provide education and outreach to local groups and individual farmers to

inspire people to become involved in their watershed. When people become stewards of their watershed, they begin to take responsibility for restoring

and protecting it. In the past few years, stewardship

of this watershed has become a vital interest of local

irrigation districts and individual farmers.

In fact, education and outreach using demonstrated BMPs funded by 319 grants have been so

successful that the irrigation districts have joined

together on their own, forming a joint interest

group called Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control (RSBOJC). Taking responsibility for water quality

themselves, they have applied for State Revolving

Fund loan money. As an indirect result of 319 outreach and education, the RSBOJC succeeded in

obtaining $10 million in loans to improve water

quality in the watershed. Because of the RSBOJC’s

outstanding efforts, in 1998 Washington’s Governor

presented the Board an award for Environmental

Excellence.

This phenomenal stewardship shows in the recovery effort. The Department of Ecology recently

initiated its TMDL program to reduce pollutant loads

in waters across Washington. For example, one of the

Yakima TMDL goals was to reduce turbidity to below

25 ntu (turbidity units) by the end of 2002. Thanks to

earlier 319 projects and to RSBOJC’s current efforts,

that goal has already been reached this year in most

drains. Additionally, the Department of Ecology

reports that as a result of RSBOJC’s stewardship

efforts, there has been no need to write an enforcement order in more than a year.

The North Fork Project:

Farmers’ Cooperation Leads to Proposed Delisting of Degraded River

Pendleton and Grant Counties, West Virginia

WEST VIRGINIA

Contact:

Lyle Bennett

NPS Program Manager

Office of Water Resources

1201 Greenbrier Street

Charleston, WV 25311

304-558-2108

lbennett@mail.state.wv.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• timbering

• streambank erosion

• agriculture

• roads

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• fecal coliform bacteria

• sediment

Project Activities:

• critical area planting

• streambank fencing

• feedlot relocation

• nutrient management plans

Results:

• 340 acres under nutrient

management plans

• 85 percent agricultural

landowner participation

rate

The North Fork Project illustrates a successful

multiagency partnership approach to solving a

water quality problem on a scenic high-quality trout

stream in the rural Potomac Headwaters area. As a

result of the implementation of numerous best

management practices (BMPs) funded under several federal and state programs, the West Virginia

Department of Agriculture is now proposing that

the North Fork River be removed (delisted) from

the list of impaired water bodies in West Virginia.

The North Fork of the South Branch Potomac

River watershed is in Pendleton and Grant Counties in West Virginia; a portion of the watershed is

in Highland County, Virginia. The area within the

watershed is predominantly forested, with agriculture as the second dominant land use. Beef and

http://www.dep.state.wv.us/wr/

West Virginia
166

poultry enterprises are the main agricultural activities. Because of the rugged nature of the terrain,

many of the concentrated livestock feeding areas

and poultry operations were located on the narrow

valley bottoms and floodplains adjacent to the

streams. High levels of bacteria and sediment

loading were adversely affecting both the North

Fork and South Branch watersheds. A U.S. Geological Survey surface water study found that the numbers of feedlots and poultry houses per square mile

had a positive correlation with concentrations of

fecal coliform bacteria in surface streams. Based on

the South Branch Potomac watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations, the North

Fork required a 35 percent reduction in fecal

coliform bacteria loading from agricultural land to

meet West Virginia’s water quality standards.

The Potomac Headwaters area historically has

produced beef cattle, forages, timber, and some

corn and apples; since the early 1990s, however, the

area has seen a significant increase in the poultry

industry. In 1993 this area became a component of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)

Water Quality Initiative, a cooperative effort of

federal, state, and local agencies to address water

quality issues. In January 1997 a Public Law 534

Land Treatment Watershed cost-share program was

initiated in the upper Potomac River Basin to address the structural and technical needs of the area

farmers in order to improve water quality and

protect the associated natural resources of the area.

In March 2000 the North Fork Watershed

Association launched a section 319 project to

address bacteria and sediment problems associated

with agricultural activities, past timbering operations, streambank erosion, and road maintenance

activities. Partners in developing the plan included

the Potomac Valley Soil Conservation District,

West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency, West

Virginia University Extension Service, West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (DEP),

West Virginia Division of Forestry, West Virginia

Division of Highways, USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service, and Trout Unlimited. The

West Virginia Agriculture Water Quality Loan

Program, funded through the DEP Clean Water

Act State Revolving Fund, also provided complementary low-interest loans (2 percent) to landowners to help finance BMP installation.

Implementing multiple BMPs

To date, 12 agricultural 319 projects, one forestry

319 project, and 19 PL-534 projects/contracts have

been implemented in the North Fork watershed to

control nonpoint source pollution. A range of BMPs

have been established to control runoff from feedlots and to eliminate or reduce cattle’s access to the

streams. These BMPs include installing streambank

fencing, relocating feedlots away from streams,

constructing roofs over concentrated feeding areas,

controlling roof runoff, establishing filter strips,

establishing riparian buffers, developing alternative

livestock watering facilities, drilling livestock water

wells, and stabilizing critical eroding areas.

Rotational grazing systems with intra-pasture

fencing systems and alternative watering facilities

have been established to improve the conditions of

pastures, reduce runoff, and control bacterial, sediment, and nutrient pollution. To control or eliminate

runoff from the poultry operations, poultry litter

storage sheds, waste composting facilities, and mortality composters have been constructed and buffer/

filter strips have been established. In addition, nutrient management plans have been developed and

implemented for more than 340 acres of cropland

and pastureland receiving animal manure.

In cooperation with West Virginia Division

of Forestry, educational workshops are being held

West Virginia
167

to educate landowners and people in the forestry

industry on conservation practices. West Virginia

foresters are developing forestry plans to promote

logging conservation and BMPs. One severely

eroded, steep hillside site has been planted with

trees and fenced for livestock exclusion as part of

a reforestation project.

Another component of the North Fork

Project has included working with the West Virginia Division of Highways (DOH) to implement

a variety of conservation practices, including a

seeding demonstration using poultry litter as a

fertilizer, a sediment erosion control workshop for

DOH employees, and the selection of a site on

DOH property for the construction of a poultry

mortality composting facility.

A West Virginia University research project

associated with the North Fork project has selected

a site to test whether acid mine drainage (AMD)

sludge, high in iron oxides, can be applied in buffer

strips to absorb soluble phosphorus before it enters

waterways. If results are favorable, AMD waste

from the nearby coal mining region can be used to

reduce phosphorus pollution from excessive manure in the poultry-producing region of the state.

Receptive agricultural community

The agricultural community within the watershed

has been extremely receptive: 85 percent of the

farmers have participated in BMP implementation.

Based on recent water quality monitoring results

and the extent of BMPs installed, it is being proposed that the North Fork River be delisted from

the 303(d) list of impaired waters in West Virginia.

Ongoing and future projects and activities

Future projects will emphasize wetland and riparian corridor restoration. Working in cooperation

with Trout Unlimited, stream channel restoration

projects using natural stream channel design technology are being planned to address stream erosion and sedimentation problems. One site for a

stream restoration project has been selected near

the Seneca Rocks scenic area, and design plans are

being developed. An educational display about the

watershed is planned for the Seneca Rocks Visitors Center in the Monongahela National Forest.

Educational programs for landowners on stream

channel protection and maintenance are planned,

and water quality monitoring by the West Virginia

Department of Agriculture is continuing.

West Virginia
168

Otter Creek Project:

319 National Monitoring Program Goals Met

Otter Creek Watershed, Wisconsin

WISCONSIN

Contact:

Russell Rasmussen

Department of Natural

Resources

101 South Webster Street

Madison, WI 53707

608-267-7651

rasmur@dnr.state.wi.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (cropland, dairy

farms)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• phosphorus

• sediment

• fecal coliform bacteria

Project Activities:

• BMPs to control barnyard

runoff and manure

• nutrient management and

reduced tillage on

cropland

• shoreline and streambank

stabilization

Results:

• more than 8,100 feet of

streambank fencing

• reductions in suspended

solids (81 percent), total

phosphorus (88 percent),

ammonia nitrogen (97

percent), biological oxygen

demand (80 percent), and

fecal coliform bacteria (84

percent)

The largely agricultural, 7,040-acre Otter Creek

watershed drains to Lake Michigan via the

Sheboygan River. Biological monitoring in the

watershed has shown that the fish community

lacks fishable numbers of warm-water sport fish,

largely because of inadequate fish habitat and

polluted water. Dissolved oxygen concentrations

occasionally drop below Wisconsin’s state standard of 5.0 milligrams per liter. In addition, bacteria levels exceed the state’s recreational standard

of 400 fecal coliforms per 100 milliliters in many

samples.

Achieving program goals

Modeling and field inventories have identified critical

areas needing treatment to achieve the project goals

of the National Monitoring Program (http://

h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/319index.html)—improving

the fishery, restoring the endangered striped shiner in

Otter Creek, improving recreational uses by reducing

bacteria levels, reducing pollutant loadings to the

Sheboygan River and Lake Michigan, and restoring

riparian vegetation.

Improved management of barnyard runoff

and manure, nutrient management and reduced

tillage on cropland, and shoreline and streambank

stabilization are all being implemented to control

sources of phosphorus, sediment, bacteria, and

streambank erosion in the watershed. Best management practices (BMPs) installed on dairy farms

include rainwater diversions, concrete loafing

areas, filter screens to trap large solids in runoff,

and grassed filter strips for treating runoff.

Paired watershed and upstream/downstream

monitoring studies covering eight monitoring sites

are used to evaluate the benefits of the BMPs.

Monitoring sites are located above and below a

dairy with barnyard and streambank stabilization

BMPs. Habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrates are

being sampled each year during the summer. Water

chemistry is tracked through analysis of 30 weekly

samples collected each year from April to October

at the paired watershed and upstream/downstream

sites. Runoff events are also sampled at the upstream/downstream sites and at the single downstream station site at the outlet of Otter Creek.

Key successes

To reduce upland soil erosion, more than 8,100

feet of streambank fencing was installed and a

significant change in cropping practices was made.

In the treatment watershed, 2 years of post-BMP

monitoring data indicate that the system of BMPs

was responsible for reductions in suspended solids

(81 percent), total phosphorus (88 percent), ammonia nitrogen (97 percent), biological oxygen

demand (80 percent), and fecal coliform bacteria

(84 percent).

Wisconsin

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/nps
169

Success in Spring Creek Watershed:

Natural Reproduction of Trout Confirms Water Quality Improvement

Union Township (Rock County), Wisconsin

WISCONSIN

Contact:

Norm Tadt

Rock County Land

Conservation Department

440 North U.S. Highway 14

Janesville, WI 53546

608-754-6617

ntadt@co.rock.wi.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• agriculture (crop farming,

heavily pastured areas,

manure runoff)

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

• nutrients

• bacteria

Project Activities:

• agricultural BMPs (barnyard

runoff management,

shoreline fencing, contour

farming, reduced tillage,

conservation crop

sequence, strip crop, and

critical area stabilization)

Results:

• improved stream habitat,

bank stability, in-stream

cover, and fish

communities, including

natural reproduction of

trout

A medium-gradient (16 feet/mile) trout stream,

Spring Creek drains about 6 square miles (3,500

acres) of Rock County farmland in the southeastern

Wisconsin Till Plains Eco-region. Spring Creek is

one of only three managed cold-water fisheries in

Rock County. Although the creek had been capable

of supporting stocked trout during the fishing seasons, it had been unable to provide habitat or water

quality suitable for trout survival throughout the

year. Because the waters of Spring Creek did not

support natural trout reproduction, annual stocking

of legal-size fish was required to provide a sport

fishery.

The major land use in the Spring Creek watershed is cropland (83 percent), but land uses also

include grass and wood (6 percent), wetlands (5

percent), development (3 percent), and some

pasture (3 percent). Excessive amounts of sediment, nutrients, and bacteria degrade the creek’s

water quality, causing unbalanced fish communities with depressed populations and limited diversity. The upland sediment delivery in the watershed is 3,241 tons per year, or 92 percent of the

entire watershed load, and cropland is the major

sediment source in the watershed. Manure runoff

from five animal lots created additional problems

by contributing more than 500 pounds of phosphorus annually to the watershed. The headwaters

of the stream had also lost much of their original

habitat to channelization.

In 1991 Wisconsin’s Department of Natural

Resources selected Spring Creek as a “priority

watershed management area” to restore stream

habitat so that trout could reproduce naturally in

its waters. Spring Creek was selected as one of

five evaluation watersheds for a 7-year study to

examine the responses of stream physical habitat,

fish, and macroinvertebrates to watershed-scale

best management practices (BMPs).

Watershed-scale response

Between 1994 and 1999, Wisconsin implemented

a number of watershed-scale BMPs to help

reduce nonpoint source pollution in the Spring

Creek watershed. By 1999 implemented BMPs

included barnyard runoff and roof runoff management practices (diverting runoff away from

animal waste); 1,600 feet of shoreline fencing;

289 acres of contour farming; reduced tillage

(297 acres long rotation, 1,486 acres short rotation); 513 acres using conservation crop sequence; 24 acres of strip crop; critical area stabilization of 2 acres; and wetland preservation

easements on 1.6 acres.

Confirming success

Wisconsin assessed stream habitat, fish and

macroinvertebrates, and streambank erosion

throughout Spring Creek at various times from

1993 through 1999, using two reference streams to

Wisconsin

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/nps
170

effectively determine the effects of BMPs applied

in the watershed. Sampling results indicated that

upland and riparian BMP installations have significantly improved overall stream habitat quality, bank

stability, in-stream cover for fish, and catch of all

fishes. These improvements were more apparent at

stream segments with streambank fencing than at

segments without such fencing.

Trout populations in Spring Creek improved

after BMP installation. The first-ever catch of

young-of-the-year trout in 1999 indicated that

Spring Creek has gained the ability to partially

sustain its trout population through natural reproduction. Fish abundance also increased after BMP

implementation, including a significant increase in

the number of cool- and cold-water fishes.

Flat Creek is in the Upper Snake River watershed.

Upstream of the town of Jackson, within the

National Elk Refuge, the creek is a Class 1 trout

stream. Historically, Flat Creek has provided

diverse recreational opportunities and aesthetic

value to the residents and visitors of Jackson as it

meanders through the community. For many

years, however, it has become increasingly apparent that once the creek enters the town, fish habitat quality is significantly diminished.

In response to these concerns, the Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality and

Jorgensen Engineering completed a water quality

assessment of Flat Creek in 1982. The study

revealed a number of factors affecting water

quality, including increased impervious surface

area, increased traffic volume, and land uses resulting in concentrations of heavy metals, oils, and

suspended solids. The study also found that urban

storm water was adversely affecting Flat Creek.

Jackson Hole Rodeo Grounds Snow Storage Site:

Filtration System Reduces Urban Storm Water Runoff

Jackson, Wyoming

WYOMING

Contact:

Brian Lovett

Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality

122 West 25th Street

Herschler Building, 4th Floor

Cheyenne, WY 82002

307-777-5622

blovet@state.wy.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• urban storm water runoff

• runoff from snow storage

area

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• heavy metals

• oils

• suspended solids

Project Activities:

• installation of storm water

filtration system

Results:

• successful removal of

storm water particulates

In 1994 the Teton County Conservation

District (TCCD), in cooperation with the Town of

Jackson, conducted a thorough investigation of

nonpoint source pollutants affecting Flat Creek.

This comprehensive program, which included

establishing permanent monitoring stations in key

areas, identified the snow storage area at the rodeo grounds as a significant source of nonpoint

source pollutants.

The TCDD, Town of Jackson, and Nelson

Engineering prepared a grant proposal for installation of a commercially available storm water

filtration system and submitted the proposal to

the Wyoming Nonpoint Source Task Force. The

project was approved for funding in the amount

of $32,735 in the fall of 1997.

In the course of determining the necessary

sizing of the filtration unit, snowmelt runoff

samples were collected and analyzed. This analysis

revealed that the sediment load in the runoff

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/00712-DOC.pdf

Wyoming
171

would exceed the capacity of existing commercial

units and require excessive maintenance. Given

these findings, the Town Engineer and Nelson

Engineering designed a surrogate filtration system. The new design lowered the project cost to

$14,824, resulting in a savings of 50 percent over

the cost of the commercial unit. Because of the

experimental nature of the new design, an amendment to the grant proposal was sought and approved. The project was completed in the fall of

1998 and evaluated for effectiveness in the spring

of 1999.

Project details

The Jackson Hole Rodeo Grounds cover 6.2

acres, with a 1-percent southwesterly slope. Snow

removed from the streets of Jackson is stored on

the western half of the lot. To improve drainage

to the southwest corner of the site, where the

filtration system is installed, the snow storage area

was graded. In the immediate area surrounding

the filtration system, a shallow detention basin was

cut to provide a settling area for particulates prior

to entering the filtration system.

The primary filter installed by the Town of

Jackson is composed of 2-inch-diameter washed

rock and a nonwoven geotextile fabric. Particles

from runoff, 0.0059 inch or greater, are trapped

and held in the top surface of the fabric in the

gravels. The filtered runoff is collected in a 6-footdiameter perforated manhole and then conveyed to

a catch basin sediment trap that provides additional

sediment removal and storage in a sump-type

facility. Runoff then passes to the storm water

collection system. The perforated manhole has

4 feet of effective depth with 1.5-inch perforations

on 8-inch centers; the immediate filtering surface is

484 square feet (22 feet by 22 feet).

A winning combination

During the winter of 1998–1999, roughly 120,000

cubic yards of snow from the streets of Jackson

was stockpiled at the rodeo grounds. The results

of storm water runoff sampling collected during

the spring runoff period were inconclusive, so

Nelson Engineering was contracted to evaluate

the system’s effectiveness. The investigation found

that the three-phase rodeo ground filtration system was effective in removing gross pollutants

0.0059 inch and larger. There was no evidence of

sediment in the bypass, so the geotextile fabric

was not replaced for the 2000 runoff season.

The design combination of sediment basin,

geofabric, washed rock filtration, and sump for bypass

flows was successful in removing particulates and can

be used in areas of limited space. This application can

be used with favorable results in urban areas where

sediments are a storm water concern. The only modification to the system being considered is the use of

filter fabric with a smaller sieve size.

Wyoming
172

Muddy Creek Coordinated Resource Management Project:

Cattle Ranches and Trout Streams Can Coexist

Carbon County, Wyoming

WYOMING

Contact:

Brian Lovett

Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality

122 West 25th Street

Herschler Building, 4th Floor

Cheyenne, WY 82002

307-777-5622

blovet@state.wy.us

Primary Sources of

Pollution:

• erosion from heavy

grazing

Primary NPS Pollutants:

• sediment

Project Activities:

• revised grazing management

practices (short-duration

grazing rotation)

• livestock management (offsite watering, electric

fencing, vegetation

management)

• prescribed burning

Results:

• increase in plant cover

trends on streambanks

(documented from

5 percent in 1989 to more

than 90 percent in 1995

in the Sulphur Springs

Allotment)

• easier cattle management

• increased beef production

The Muddy Creek Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) project is one of the original national

“Seeking Common Ground” demonstration

projects. It encompasses nearly 300,000 acres of

mixed federal, state, and private lands in Carbon

County, Wyoming. Using the philosophy of ecosystem management on a watershed basis, the local

conservation district initiated the CRM process to

get all affected interests in the watershed working

on consensus management of the natural resources

in the project area. To date, more than 25 members

representing private landowners; federal, state, and

local agencies; environmental and conservation

organizations; industry; and the public at large have

worked on the project.

Many conservation and land management

tools have been implemented to restore, enhance,

and maintain the abundant natural resources in the

area while maintaining the economic stability and

cultural heritage of the people on the land. The

ecosystem management philosophy dictates that

before any action is taken or management practice

implemented, all impacts and users of the area

must be addressed. It is because of this philosophy

and spirit of cooperation that the wildlife, livestock,

and all the associated natural resources in the watershed have shown improvement since the project

began. A comment from Millicent Sanger, whose

family has been in the area since the 1930s, sums

up the progress made: “I have never seen the water

as clear and clean as it is now.”

The CRM project contains several grazing

allotments established when the Bureau of Land

Management first began to permit grazing on

federal lands. The following are some examples of

the cooperation among people and the coordination of management practices implemented on

grazing allotments that have contributed to the

success of the Muddy Creek CRM project.

Doty Mountain Allotment

“Getting to know the land, building relationships

through communication, earning the trust so that

people can identify their common ground and

In 1989 vegetation cover on the banks of Muddy Creek was only about 5

percent.

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/00712-DOC.pdf

Wyoming
173

work together to achieve success” is what the

CRM process means to Ray Weber of the Doty

Mountain Allotment. Weber believes that “it takes

commitment to not just work hard but to deal

with the many diverse people and their interests”

to make successful improvements on the land. In

this case, just a simple change from spring to fall

grazing was the solution. “What this CRM group

and many others have found out is that our ‘common ground’ is much greater than our differences,” Weber says, “so let’s set our differences

aside for the moment and work together to be

successful.”

Grizzly and Daly Allotments

Other types of changes in grazing practices have

been implemented throughout the project area.

For example, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) purchased the base property

of the Grizzly and Daly Allotments and designated it as part of a wildlife and livestock demonstration project. Historical use of these allotments

allowed for season-long grazing by cattle and

sheep. Once the WGFD took ownership of the

Grizzly Allotment, it implemented a short-duration grazing season. Each of the eight pastures

was grazed for 7 to 21 days rather than the usual

60 to 90 days. This type of management promotes

recovery of healthy riparian areas by giving plants

plenty of time to grow.

But simply moving to a short-duration grazing rotation wasn’t good enough for Jim Chant of

the Desert Cattle Company. As the lessee of the

Grizzly and Daly Allotments, Chant has shown a

strong commitment to improving the resources

and proving that wildlife and cattle can coexist

beneficially. He and two full-time cowboys implement the WGFD’s short-duration grazing season

by herding the cattle out of the riparian areas and

onto the uplands each afternoon. Not only does

this approach improve utilization within each

pasture, but it also reduces time spent in the lush

riparian zones. In addition, improvements to

facilitate livestock management such as spring

developments, off-site watering, electric fencing

(much of it solar-powered), high-tension fencing,

and vegetation management are ongoing. A primary goal of the CRM group is to reintroduce

the Colorado River cutthroat trout into Muddy

Creek, whose headwaters are in the Grizzly Allotment. Once these upper portions of the watershed are in proper condition, trout will thrive.

Chant says he wants to be the first rancher to run

cattle next to a Colorado cutthroat trout stream,

“to show it can be done.”

Prescribed burning has proved extremely

beneficial for livestock, wildlife, and vegetation

communities in the Muddy Creek drainage.

Burning upland areas allows sagebrush seedlings

to sprout, thereby creating a more diverse age

class of sagebrush. Also, the livestock are enticed

away from the riparian areas to graze on the

more desirable grasses produced by the burning.

Fire removes the sagebrush competition so that

aspen can expand its area in both riparian and

By installing pasture fencing and using managed grazing rotations, ranchers

were able to increase vegetative cover by 85 percent from 1989 conditions.

Wyoming
174

upland sites. After burning, regrowth occurs

quickly, and within a few years a larger, healthier

community emerges.

Sulphur Springs Allotment

The Sulphur Springs Allotment is managed by

Millicent and Kathryn Sanger, a mother and daughter whose family has used this area since the 1930s.

It was one of the first allotments for which management plans were developed in conjunction with

the Bureau of Land Management during the 1960s.

The various pastures in the allotment are used to

control grazing time and use. This approach allows

the Sangers to congregate the cattle in smaller

areas, resulting in improved conception rates, easier

management of the cattle, and overall increased

beef production. Plant cover on the streambanks

increased from only 5 percent in 1989 to more than

90 percent in 1995. Most of this change occurred

after pasture fencing and managed grazing rotation

were implemented. The Sangers appreciate how the

land looks when they leave in the fall, knowing

there is plenty of forage left for the elk and mule

deer indigenous to the area.

Working together to be successful

Using various conservation and land management

tools, a coalition of government agencies, private

organizations, and individuals are making a difference in Carbon County. Their cooperative effort

has resulted in benefits for waters, wildlife, and

cattle ranches alike.

Wyoming
Information and Education Programs 175

T here are more than 40 million acres of rangeland in California, half of which is in privateownership and provides 90 percent of the forage base. Most of this acreage is located at strategic

mid-level elevations, between California’s upper elevations and urban and agricultural uses in valley and

coastal areas. More than 9,000 miles of waterways drain the area. California’s major water supply reservoirs are located on rangeland, and eight of the state’s major drainage basins are dominated by commonly grazed vegetation.

Streams that once could depend on riparian vegetation to keep them cool and clean have become

degraded. Their riparian vegetation has been stripped, their trampled banks are collapsing, and their

temperatures are rising. The water quality problems include nutrients and pathogens, erosion, and sedimentation. Some of the more serious impacts have threatened the state’s drinking water supply with

bacterial contamination and caused significant declines in the state’s cold-water salmon and steelhead

trout fishery.

With partial funding through 319 grants, the University of California Cooperative Extension, in

cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association and others, has developed and is presenting a

voluntary Ranch Water Quality Planning Short Course. In the course, ranchers receive information to

assist them in making an assessment of nonpoint source pollution on their land and to help them determine the extent to which their operation might be causing the problem. The program is voluntary, and

individual ranchers, at their own discretion, may or may not use outside technical assistance.

Information and Education Programs

Ranch Water Quality Planning: Voluntary Rangeland Management

Eases Impacts on California Watersheds

All states recognize that strong information and education programs are critical to achieving their

nonpoint source program goals. This special feature section highlights nine especially innovative state

information and education programs. It focuses on programs that provide technical assistance tailored to

the locality (e.g., Rhode Island’s onsite wastewater training center, Florida’s Yards & Neighborhood

program, California’s voluntary rangeland management program, and Connecticut’s NEMO program)

and programs that incorporate an education component geared toward kids (e.g., Wyoming’s stream

monitoring program, Illinois’s Salt Creek Wilderness, and North Dakota’s Eco-Camp). It also includes

the more “traditional” information and education programs (e.g., Wisconsin’s Water Action Volunteers

and Colorado’s media campaign). These programs all have in common a wide network of partners and

funding sources, as well as a creatively packaged approach.
176 Information and Education Programs

Various materials are provided to help the ranchers: aerial photographs and maps of their lands;

monitoring strategies, including photo-point monitoring and residual ground covering monitoring; and

informative, easy-to-understand, one-page information sheets on a variety of pertinent topics that provide the basic kinds of information needed to understand the ecological relationships among rain, soil,

plants, grazing animals, and water quality.

If a rancher decides that few or no changes need to be made in the ranch operation, a short Letter

of Intent declaring the finding is to be written to become a part of the personal ranch record. If problems are identified that the rancher determines result from the operation, the rancher is encouraged to

complete a Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan. The plan is done at the discretion of the

rancher. If done, the plan indicates the structural and operational changes the rancher intends to implement to eliminate polluted runoff from the land. The plan becomes a part of the personal ranch record,

and local Natural Resources Conservation Service representatives are available to offer technical and

financial assistance if the rancher chooses to use their services.

In the first year of program operation, about 100 ranchers, who own or manage some 400,000 acres

of ranchland, enrolled for Ranch Water Quality Planning Short Courses. Since September 1997 plans

have been completed for approximately 475,000 acres along the coast and in the San Joaquin Valley and

foothills. The State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards are

committed to this approach and continue to support the program with section 319 funds and staff participation. Cooperative Extension routinely schedules additional courses throughout California.

Contact Information: Chris Chaloupka, Nonpoint Source Agriculture Unit, State Water Resources Control Board, 916-657-0703,

chalc@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov; Mel George, University of California Cooperative Extension–Davis, 530-752-1720, mrgeorge@ucdavis.edu

Colorado Water Protection Project: League of Women

Voters Guides Extensive Urban NPS Campaign

“Crystal clear” and “sparkling blue” are common media references to Colorado’s waters. Citizensthroughout the state have been hearing another water message, though, through a special

outreach crusade. The message shares how an average homeowner can actively protect and avoid polluting Colorado’s waters.

The League of Women Voters’ Colorado Education Fund is reaching the state with this message

through the Colorado Water Protection Project, supported in part through 319 funding. The project

seeks to raise citizens’ awareness of the need for more preventative approaches for emerging water issues. Because most of Colorado’s population is urban, three information areas were identified for emphasis: home fertilizer and pesticide use, pet waste, and do-it-yourself auto maintenance.

The media campaign kicked off with a 30-second television message that aired statewide for a 10-

day period in spring 1999. About 90 percent of potential Colorado viewers were reached with the television products. The campaign was broadened with the concurrent release of information through newspaper articles, eye-catching local bus advertisements, and pollution prevention pamphlets that were dis-
Information and Education Programs 177

tributed statewide.Project partners include a diverse representation of private and government entities.

Nearly 40 representatives serve on the project’s technical committee, and 16 organizations have contributed funds and services.

Surveys conducted before implementing the project found that less than 50 percent of the respondents knew that storm water runs into local rivers, streams, and lakes untreated by municipal treatment

facilities. A majority did not realize household-generated polluted runoff was a significant contributor to

water pollution. More than 25 percent did not think household-generated polluted runoff was a local

community concern or had an impact on their quality of life. Twenty percent did not think a person

could make a difference by preventing pollution in his or her household.

Lack of information and inconvenience were noted as barriers to changing behavior. Television and newspapers were found to be best means to convey needed information. Health concerns, drinking water protection,

and environmental quality for future generations were the main motivation factors for changing behavior.

Post-project survey results showed that respondents have been affected by the project’s efforts. Two

project goals were met—greater awareness of what household-generated polluted runoff is and increased understanding that individuals can make a difference. Less success was realized in meeting the

goal of increasing people’s understanding of how polluted runoff enters local rivers, lakes, and streams.

Contact Information: Cynthia Petersen, Project Manager, Colorado Water Protection Project, 303-861-5195

Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO):

Successful Connecticut Project Used as Model Nationwide

NEMO is an educational program for land use decision makers that addresses the relationship between land use and natural resource protection, with a focus on water resources. The NEMO

project was created in 1991 by the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service (Uconn/

CES), in partnership with the Department of Natural Resources Management and Engineering and the

Connecticut Sea Grant Program. NEMO receives funding from a number of federal and state agencies;

major funding is provided by the USDA/Cooperative Research, Education, and Extension Service Water

Quality Program, the University of Connecticut, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

NEMO helps communities to better protect their natural resources while charting the future course

of their towns. The project uses advanced technologies—geographic information systems (GIS), remote

sensing, and the Internet—to create effective education programs. NEMO presentations, publications,

and Web-based services form an integrated package of information centered around the theme of natural resource-based planning. The presentations help explain the links between land use, water quality, and

community character. The project also offers follow-up presentations and materials to help communities

move forward on the two major aspects of natural resource-based planning, namely, planning for areas

to be preserved and planning for developed or developing areas.
178 Information and Education Programs

A Connecticut success story

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) estimates that about one-third of

the state’s rivers and streams and three-quarters of the state’s portion of Long Island Sound are impaired, primarily because of nonpoint source pollution from urban and suburban areas and construction

sites. Nonpoint source pollution is generated by land use, and most land use decisions in Connecticut are

made at the local level by municipal officials and private landowners. Federal and state nonpoint source

laws and programs established over the past 30 years have created a growing need for local officials to be

more knowledgeable about the causes, effects, and management of polluted runoff. With 169 municipalities in Connecticut, the large number of local officials and the continual turnover of volunteer commissioners present a challenge to those who want to educate land use decision-makers.

In 1997 CT DEP awarded section 319 grant funds to NEMO to expand its program to provide technical assistance for local officials. During the first year, NEMO delivered its basic presentation through a

series of 10 regional workshops. More than 120 of the state’s 169 municipalities were represented at the

workshops, and many participants contacted NEMO to schedule follow-up meetings on specific issues or

concerns. Each municipality also received a map set (watersheds and land cover) to help educate local officials and facilitate nonpoint source management at the local level. In 1998 and 1999 NEMO conducted

regional workshops to teach local officials how to manage nonpoint source pollution by addressing imperviousness through their land use planning and regulatory authorities. Over the past 2 years, although still

conducting regional workshops that focus on new land use commissioners, the project has moved to a

more intensive approach, selecting on a competitive basis five communities per year to enter the “Municipal

Program.” In this educational model, each community is charged with listing specific goals, creating a

NEMO committee made up of representatives from all the land use boards and commissions and other

interested parties, and designating a chief NEMO contact to facilitate the progress.

Proven results

After 8 years of the NEMO Project, there is concrete evidence that Connecticut municipalities are giving

greater consideration to water quality in their land use planning and regulatory programs than in years

past. Two such examples are highlighted below.

As a result of NEMO’s Eightmile River Watershed Project, the towns of Lyme, East Haddam, and

Salem signed the “Eightmile River Watershed Conservation Compact,” which commits the towns to

work together to protect natural resources from new development. Since the signing, the three towns,

local land trusts, and The Nature Conservancy have protected more than 1,800 acres of open space in

the watershed. In addition, UConn/CES foresters have worked with landowners to develop forest stewardship plans on almost 500 acres and provided information that is being used to manage another 2,500

acres of forestland. The project was also instrumental in helping to build a fish ladder to restore access

to upstream habitat for alewives and blueback herring for the first time since the early 1700s.

As one of NEMO’s original pilot projects, the suburban coastal municipality of Old Saybrook has a

long-term relationship with the project that has resulted in a progression of positive impacts that contin-
Information and Education Programs 179

ues to broaden in scope. The Zoning Commission reduced the number of required parking spaces in

several site plans to reduce the amount of impervious surface where it could be demonstrated that fewer

cars were likely. Associated landscaping regulations were revised to require the breaking up of “seas of

asphalt” through the use of landscaped islands and buffers. The Conservation Commission revised the

town’s Conservation Plan to include a recommendation on controlling nonpoint source pollution and

recently completed a natural resources inventory for the town. The Board of Selectmen prepared a

Policy Statement that includes alternative design and construction standards and vegetative storm water

management practices that were incorporated directly from NEMO Project design principles and are in

keeping with Phase II storm water permit requirements.

Future of NEMO

Based on the success of the first several years of this partnership, CT DEP anticipates continuing its

section 319 funding support for NEMO and now considers NEMO an integral part of the state’s

Nonpoint Source Management Program. In 2001 NEMO is continuing its Municipal Program, as well as

impervious surface research.

The UConn NEMO Project is the coordinating center for the National NEMO Network, a growing

network of projects around the country adapted from the Connecticut project. As a result of NEMO’s

success in Connecticut, 34 other states have established or are planning to establish technical assistance

programs based on the NEMO model. For more information about the NEMO Project, visit http://

nemo.ucon.edu.

Contact Information: Laurie Giannotti, Connecticut NEMO Coordinator, Middlesex County Extension Center, 1066 Saybrook Road,

P.O. Box 70, Haddam, CT 06438-0070, 860-345-4511; John Rozum, NEMO National Network Coordinator, 860-345-4511,

jrozum@canr.uconn.edu

Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program:

More Than 1.2 Million People Reached

The Florida Yards & Neighborhoods (FY&N) Program was developed toaddress the serious problems of pollution and disappearing habitats by

enlisting homeowners in the battle to save the natural environment. The program provides educational and outreach activities directed at the community to

help residents reduce pollution and enhance their environment by improving

home and landscape management. The program is being implemented statewide, using the University of Florida County Extension Service and other local,

regional, state, federal, and nongovernmental agencies as partners.

FY&N encourages “Florida Friendly” yards and landscapes by promoting basic landscaping principles to homeowners: water efficiently; mulch; recycle; select the least toxic pest control measures; put

the right plant in the right spot; fertilize only when necessary; provide food, water, and shelter for wildPutting the right plant in the right spot, as

demonstrated in this award-winning yard, reduces

the need for water and toxic pest control measures.
180 Information and Education Programs

life; protect surface water bodies; and minimize

storm water runoff. Other stakeholders targeted

by this program include the landscape, turf, and

nursery industry; property developers and builders; water resource managers; and youth.

An FY&N project in a neighborhood near the

Indian River Lagoon was the basis for initiating the

statewide FY&N Program. Residents in neighborhoods near the lagoon were provided educational

information through pamphlets, presentations,

workshops, and on-site workdays on how household activities might affect the water quality of the

lagoon. Each household received information on

methods for reducing nonpoint source pollutants such as fertilizers, pesticides, solid waste, freshwater flow,

and on-site water retention. The program focused on alternative pesticide/fertilizer use and frequency of

application, and on landscape maintenance and design. Demonstration landscapes were placed at highly

visible locations throughout the six-county area to promote the program’s concepts.

The project resulted in the training of 128 volunteer Florida Yard Advisors through the Master Gardener program; the advisors provide technical assistance to area property owners. More than 10,000 residents were reached directly at 830 workshops. It is estimated that more than 1.2 million people were informed about the program through radio and television broadcasts, newspaper articles, and exhibits. Thirteen demonstration landscapes were installed throughout the region as examples of FY&N practices. More

than 600 homeowners participated in the program, and 404 completed pre/post surveys that helped measure the project’s effectiveness. For adopting a sufficient number of recommended practices, 330 properties

were certified as Florida Yards. Efficient watering and irrigation practices were adopted by 45 percent of

the program participants, and 32 percent adopted Florida Friendly landscape management practices.

The FY&N program is active in 21 different counties, and expansion plans have been developed to

include all the other counties in Florida. To find out more about the FY&N program, visit the FY&N

web site at http://hort.ufl.edu/fyn.

Contact Information: Christine Kelly-Begazo, State Coordinator, FY&N Program, ckelly@mail.ifas.ufl.edu; or contact the statewide office

at 352-392-7938

The Salt Creek Wilderness: Illinois Zoo Offers Interactive

Environmental Learning Experience

The western section of Brookfield Zoo is called Salt Creek Wilderness. It includes a quarter-milehiking trail, the 4-acre Indian Lake, and a new 1-acre demonstration wetland called Dragonfly

Water efficiency was achieved in this award-winning lawn by replacing a

traditional grass lawn with native plants and mulch.
Information and Education Programs 181

Marsh. This 10-acre wooded area focuses on native Illinois plants and animals and provides naturalistic

experiences for many of the zoo’s 2 million annual visitors.

Staff from Brookfield Zoo, Illinois EPA, U.S. EPA Region 5, and the Northeastern Illinois Planning

Commission created the unique educational interpretive experience. The first goal was to develop a “big

idea” that would serve as the underlying theme for all of the experiences in the Salt Creek Wilderness.

The big idea is “Healthy urban watersheds must be managed to provide clean water resources essential

for diverse plant and animal habitat.”

Key concepts were developed to support the big idea, including the role people must play in managing

natural systems, the definition and importance of biodiversity, the impacts of nonpoint source pollution, and

appreciation and conservation of natural areas. Next came the development of statements and interactive

mechanisms for conveying these ideas, especially concepts like nonpoint source pollution and watersheds.

These concepts were translated into graphic signs and interactive devices. The zoo plans to do a summational

evaluation to quantify the effectiveness of the messages and the usage of each element.

Dragonfly Marsh consists of two deep pools, an emergent aquatic area, sedge meadow, wet prairie,

and prairie. In addition, more than 12,000 individual plants, including flowers, grasses, sedges, and bulrushes, have been planted in the marsh. To create the wetland, two soil scientists from the Natural Resources Conservation Service surveyed the area to determine the soil suitability and design the wetland.

The area was excavated and graded. Water is pumped from Indian Lake into the pools and then allowed

to flow and percolate through the soils back to the lake.

An 85-foot boardwalk, constructed of wood from tropical ipe trees, overlooks the wetland. Lining

the boardwalk’s railing are about 250 color illustrations that identify the plants, mammals, fishes, invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians that can be found in northeastern Illinois’s woodlands, prairies, and

wetlands. At the end of the boardwalk is the Biodiversity Gallery, a 30-foot by 30-foot covered shelter. A

collage of signs communicates the importance of biodiversity and explains why people should work to

protect it. In the gallery, children can also learn about biodiversity by reading the giant storybook The

Adventures of Duncan the Dragonfly. The children’s story details the life cycle of a dragonfly and introduces a

number of the animals that share the dragonfly’s habitat.

Several strategies are necessary to manage the wetland and allow new growth to develop fully. Surrounding the wetland, 850 feet of 71⁄2-foot-high fencing prevents deer from trampling and eating the

plants. In addition, a grid of black nylon rope with white flags is stretched across the entire site to discourage geese from landing and destroying the vegetation.

This project began in July 1996 and culminated with a celebration on August 14 and 15, 1999, highlighting the Indian Lake and Dragonfly Marsh interactive exhibits. Salt Creek Wilderness is a tremendous

educational tool that encourages zoo guests to explore and understand the complex relationships among

water, plants, and wildlife. It also gives people knowledge of nonpoint source pollution and how to

reduce it in their local environments.

Contact Information: Barb Lieberoff, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, IL 62794-9276, 217-782-

3362, epa1103@epa.state.il.us
182 Information and Education Programs

North Dakota Eco-Ed Camps: Thousands of Students

Have Fun While Learning

Can you imagine taking 100 sixth-grade students camping overnight and having no problems findingadult volunteers to come along? Students are expected to play in the mud, chew on wildflower roots,

canoe in the creek, locate and identify things like deer and bird droppings, and get utterly dirty and wet.

And they love it!

Nine years ago, the Barnes County Soil Conservation District (SCD) in North Dakota began a program using an EPA section 319 grant as the basis for improving the format of the county’s conservation

tour. Five topics of study were identified, and every Eco-Ed Camp must address them—prairie/grasslands, soils, wetlands, woodlands, and water quality. All of the subjects are covered in relation to water

and its importance. A session on water safety is also required before the students may canoe.

In addition to the required material, the camps feature scavenger hunts, canoeing, Native American

presentations, live birds like eagles and falcons, live bugs (cockroaches, spiders, and others), characters

like Teddy Roosevelt and Sam Ting, artifacts, mountain men, campfires and guitar sing-a-longs, nature

walks, flint fires, water relays, recycling demonstrations, and more.

The schedule has been revised to accommodate 1-day tours; however, most students, teachers, and

chaperones prefer the 2-day format if facilities are available. The longer format provides students with a

diversified, hands-on learning experience. Students are immediately able to relate the five topics to the

environment as they function in it. Teachers use the material and experiences as a basis for their earth

science classes when they return to their classrooms.

In 1997 the Barnes County SCD received additional section 319 funding to develop Eco-Ed Camps

in coordination with any SCD in North Dakota. This effort is referred to as the Statewide Eco-Ed Program. It was projected that 20 to 25 camps would be developed within the first 5 years of the grant. In

the first season (fall 1997), 11 new counties joined the program (conducting eight 1-day tours and three

2-day camps). A total of 1,418 students, about 200 parents and chaperones, and 65 classroom teachers

participated. In the 9 years Barnes County has conducted the Eco-Ed Camps, more than 2,000 Barnes

County students have attended the camps. Those first alumni are now 20 years old and living in all parts

of the country. It is gratifying to know that these young adults have the education to understand ecology

and the importance of water quality.

To date some 12,000 students have attended an Eco-Ed tour or camp in North Dakota. As one former

student put it, “I had so much fun at camp that I was surprised that I actually learned something!”

Contact Information: Greg Sandness, North Dakota NPS Pollution Management Coordinator, 701-328-5232
Information and Education Programs 183

University of Rhode Island Onsite Wastewater Training

Center: Pioneering Agency Teaches, Demonstrates

Innovative Systems

Approximately one-third of Rhode Island’s population is served by some 150,000 on-site wastewatertreatment systems, which discharge about 7 billion gallons of wastewater annually. Failed and

substandard systems are considered to be one of the greatest contributors of pathogens to Rhode Island’s

waters. For many years, on-site systems have been considered temporary infrastructure to be abandoned as

soon as centralized sewer systems became available. Neither government nor individual owners gave operation and maintenance of these systems much thought. Over the past few years, thinking has changed as the

reality has set in that suburban economies cannot support ubiquitous central sewers.

In light of this realization, Rhode Island has become active in promoting improved on-site wastewater treatment technology and development of management infrastructure for these systems. One of the

pioneering agencies of the decentralized wastewater management paradigm is the University of Rhode

Island’s (URI) Onsite Wastewater Training Center.

In 1994 and 1995 URI received 319 funding to help establish the training center. The 319 grant seed

money helped fund the aboveground installation of several innovative technologies, as well as development of several training modules. The 319 funds were used in combination with Rhode Island Cooperative Extension funds, other outside grants, substantial private-sector donations, and class training fees.

In addition to providing a wide variety of training activities, the training center has spearheaded, under

the auspices of several federal and state-funded demonstration projects, the installation of several dozen

innovative demonstration systems throughout the state to remediate failed septic systems. Training center

personnel work with municipalities to assist them in developing on-site wastewater management programs,

assessing risks, and drafting zoning ordinances based on treatment standards and performance-based wastewater protection zones. Demonstration systems and training systems at the center are used to educate audiences that range from homeowners to septic system design and installation professionals.

The training center supports regulatory programs in Rhode Island by monitoring alternative and

innovative system treatment performance, developing numerous licensing program courses for wastewater practitioners, assessing standards and regulations, and developing guidance documents. In short,

URI’s Onsite Wastewater Training Center has become a major focal point for helping to promote change

and for demonstrating innovation in the field of on-site wastewater treatment.

For more information about individual demonstration projects, see www.edc.uri.edu/cewq/

owtc.html.

Contact Information: David Dow, Program Manager, 401-874-5950; George Loomis, Director, 401-874-4558
184 Information and Education Programs

Water Action Volunteers: WAV and Its Partners Make a

Difference in Wisconsin

Wisconsin’s Water Action Volunteers (WAV) program has continued to grow and flourish since itwas last highlighted in Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II. This statewide program, funded by a

combination of 319 and University of Wisconsin Extension money, provides educational opportunities,

materials, and assistance to individuals and groups interested in caring for streams and rivers. Three major

WAV activities are storm drain stenciling, river cleanup, and river and stream monitoring.

Storm drain stenciling

Painting a message next to storm drain inlets has become the water quality hallmark for about 100 Wisconsin communities. In the past 5 years, more than 3,400 volunteers, armed with spray paint and a lot of

enthusiasm, have stenciled nearly 9,000 storm drains with the message “Dump No Waste—Drains to

River [or Lake or Stream].” The volunteers announce their event with educational door hangers that

describe storm water pollution and ways to curb its effects. The stencils and door hangers are also available in Spanish. The success of this effort is the result of the many county, University of WisconsinExtension, and Department of Natural Resources local offices that have worked closely with the WAV

program to distribute or loan supplies to local volunteers.

WAV conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of storm drain stenciling. The results show that

the stenciled messages do leave an impression on people who have seen them, successfully influencing

their awareness of basic storm water facts such as storm drain destinations. The degree of influence of a

stenciled message on a person’s behavior is less apparent. The brief message might be too general; it

does not contain specific information to connect specific actions to storm water concerns. The strength

of this message is that it can be a catalyst, or an additive to reinforce existing storm water educational

programs. Stenciling storm drains might best be used as a positive message for those already using environmentally friendly practices.

River cleanups

Each year, WAV coordinates a statewide river cleanup program. In the past 5 years, more than 11,000

volunteers have collected 2,550 bags of trash plus another 80 tons of garbage from nearly 500 miles of

shoreline. The cooperative efforts between WAV and several environmental and outdoor groups and

county land conservation departments made the great success of this effort possible.

River and stream monitoring

WAV has also launched a program to allow citizens to monitor the health of their local rivers and streams.

The program supports data sharing for educational purposes; provides a network for volunteer groups,

individuals, and schools to interact; provides support to civic, conservation, and environmental groups; and

helps increase linkages between volunteer monitoring efforts and public resource protection programs. The

program was designed so that sampling parameters would be common among sampling groups, easy to
Information and Education Programs 185

measure, and would well represent stream health over time. The monitoring protocols require equipment

that is easily obtained and affordable, and the parameters are those safe to monitor.

Five parameters that are currently part of the program are temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen,

habitat, and biotic community health (assessed using a macroinvertebrate biotic index). A sixth parameter, flow, will be added in the coming months.

At least 10 groups are using WAV protocols, and several groups are considering beginning monitoring programs. The current groups are monitoring between 1 and 25 sites and in most cases have 1 to 20

volunteers. The groups are generally citizen-based, but some schools use WAV protocols to sample during the spring and fall months. Local monitoring groups are working with DNR biologists, interest

groups (such as Trout Unlimited), watershed associations, county and municipal offices, and local

schools. Most groups hold training sessions during the spring for new monitors, and some offer troubleshooting/support meetings during the sampling season.

Many of the monitoring groups interact with Watershed Education

Resource Centers. There are 13 such centers across the state. The centers are

designed to make watershed-focused resources available to civic organizations, clubs, schools, and individuals at little or no cost. Monitoring and stenciling equipment, as well as instructional guides, videos, and keys, are available

to be borrowed.

The newest addition to the WAV monitoring program is a Web-based

database. The database will provide an opportunity for volunteers to view

and subsequently analyze data from their stream or other streams in the state

that are being monitored by WAV volunteers. Two volunteer groups are

testing the database, and it should be ready for use in spring 2002.

In the meantime, look for information about stenciling and monitoring

(including access to the database, downloadable fact and data sheets for

monitoring, and reporting forms for stenciling or cleanup projects) to appear

soon at the WAV web site at http://clean-water.uwex.edu.

Contact Information: Kris Stepenuck, Water Action Volunteer Coordinator, DNR, WT/2, 101 South

Webster, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707, 608-264-8948, stepek@dnr.state.wi.us

Stream Monitoring Network with Wyoming Schools:

Trained Teams Initiate, Expand School Monitoring

Programs

Beginning in March 1993, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality used a 319 grant tofund Teton Science School to conduct a 3-year statewide education and monitoring program with

secondary school teachers and Conservation District personnel teams. The program used the Monitoring

Wyoming’s Water Quality curriculum developed by Teton Science School to train the teams on water quality

Publications and Educational

Materials

• Water Action Volunteers. Make WAVes

for Action: Introductory Activity Packet.

Hands-on stream and river action

projects for Wisconsin. 1998, updated

spring 2001.

• Community Water Education and Action

Opportunities for Youth and Adult.

Brochure. 1998. Now available online at

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/

bureau/education/reslst.htm

• Storm Drain Stenciling. Impacts on Urban

Water Quality (Winter 1999).

• Volunteer Monitoring Fact Sheet Series

(6). 1998, updated 2001.

• The WAV web site: http://cleanwater.uwex.edu/wav/.

• Monitoring data sheets.

• Wacky, Wonderful, Water Critters.

Booklet.

• Key to Macroinvertebrate Life in the

River.

• Key to Life in the Pond.

• Biotic Index poster.
186 Information and Education Programs

monitoring and also distributed an extensive water quality monitoring kit to each of the teams. By December 1995, 22 teacher/Conservation District teams had been trained and had established annual testing sites throughout Wyoming.

In the summers of 1993, 1994, and 1995, the Teton Science School conducted training workshops in

monitoring protocol, reporting guidelines, and use of the water quality monitoring kits. The three weeklong workshops trained 47 teachers and 23 Conservation District personnel. By spring 1996, 56 rivers or

streams were being monitored annually on 109 sites. The school estimates that 1,175 students are involved in the monitoring programs.

The real success of the program is demonstrated where teams participating in the monitoring workshop have enhanced or expanded the monitoring programs in their communities. Teams working on the

Tongue River in Sheridan and on the Upper North Platte River in Saratoga, for example, have expanded

their monitoring efforts to include long-term intensive watershed assessment projects. Students and

teachers from Lander High School have adopted a site on Squaw Creek and are now involved in a longterm habitat improvement project. The monitoring training has allowed Pinedale Middle School to establish several long-term monitoring projects, which they have integrated into their science curriculum.

Teachers from the Jackson School District are working with the local Conservation District to create a

monitoring program for elementary school students, and their efforts have already reached more than 75

elementary school children.

The success of the 3-year education and monitoring program is evident in the commitment of

participants, the data submitted, and the positive feedback from all those involved in the project. Teton

Science School has recently received numerous requests from educators throughout the state to conduct

more workshops on water quality issues. To meet the demand and continue the success of the program,

Teton Science School applied for and received a 319 grant for 2001 to conduct two week-long workshops for Wyoming teachers on nonpoint source pollution.

Contact Information: Brian Lovett, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 122 West 25th Street, Herschler Building, 4th Floor,

Cheyenne, WY 82002, 307-777-5622, blovet@state.wy.us
Innovative State Programs 187

Innovative State Programs

States are implementing a wide variety of innovative programs to help them achieve their nonpoint source

program goals. This special feature section highlights six especially innovative state programs. Some programs feature regulatory components (e.g., Hawaii’s erosion and sediment control project, Massachusetts’

storm water utility program, and Idaho’s dairy pollution initiative), whereas others highlight the

nonregulatory, voluntary adoption of nonpoint source best management practices (e.g., New York’s Agricultural Environmental Management Program, California’s BIOS Program, and South Carolina’s

Forestry Best Management Practice Compliance Program). These programs all have in common a wide

network of partners and funding sources, some beyond 319 entirely (e.g., Idaho’s dairy pollution initiative). This section also highlights a compilation of statewide Clean Marinas Programs that are fast becoming a popular way of promoting environmentally responsible marina and boating practices across the

nation.

California’s BIOS Program: Growers Adopt Whole-System

Management Approach to Reduce Pesticide Use

The Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems (BIOS) project is a community-based pollution prevention program that uses biological methods to replace chemical farming practices. It was started in

1993 to help California almond growers and other farmers reduce their reliance on synthetic pesticides.

Already reported as a success in Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II (1997), the program continues to

expand and attract new funding sources in addition to 319 funding.

The program was designed to address the problems caused by the pesticide diazinon, which is applied as a dormant spray during the winter as a routine almond production practice. During heavy rainstorms, the pesticide flows into surface irrigation systems, creeks, and streams and eventually into the

major rivers of the San Joaquin Valley, the Delta, and San Francisco Bay. Diazinon is an organophosphate that the National Academy of Science has recommended be present only at concentrations below

9 nanograms per liter. It was being found at more than 1,000 ng/L in some runoff pulses.

How the program works

In 1995 the Central Valley Regional Board and the State Board joined the University of California, the

Natural Resources Conservation Service, EPA, and numerous private foundations (which were already

supporting the BIOS program) to expand the program in Merced and Stanislaus Counties, where

diazinon was causing water quality problems.

BIOS participation begins with a customized management plan for each farmer who enrolls a new

block of acreage (typically 20 to 30 acres) under BIOS management. Participating growers adopt a
188 Innovative State Programs

whole-system management approach that considers all aspects of production: tillage practices; nutrient, water, and pest management; and soil and water issues in the larger landscape. For example, BIOS uses cover crops, compost, and other natural fertilizers to

decrease soil-borne pest problems and promote soil health. It uses biological controls (cover crops, natural areas, and hedgerows) to

provide habitat for predators and beneficial insects and to reduce or even eliminate plant diseases and pests. Finally, it relies on

monitoring and observation to determine if and when the least harmful chemical should be applied.

The plan is developed with the help of a BIOS Management Team that includes a local farm advisor, university researchers,

local experienced participant farmers, and a Pesticide Control Advisor with extensive experience in helping almond farmers reduce

their reliance on diazinon and other farm chemicals. Follow-up support continues with technical support, consultation with members of the management team, local educational events like field days and workshops, and technical publications. A comprehensive

monitoring program is also integral to each BIOS project.

Encouraging results

According to the Community of Alliance with Family Farmers Foundation (CAFF), 98 percent of the growers who joined the expansion program completely eliminated the use of diazinon. The pollution prevention methods BIOS teaches have influenced not

only the 90 growers officially enrolled in the program but also many more growers who have introduced at least some of the BIOS

practices in their orchards. A long-time Pesticide Control Advisor in Merced County estimates that at least 60 percent of the

county’s almond growers are cutting back on pesticides and using some form of biological management that they weren’t using

before the BIOS program began.

Looking toward the future

As with all innovative programs, the time comes when subsidized start-up funds are no longer available and programs must continue

on their own. Direct BIOS management is provided for 3 years; then a transition period begins. From the outset of the BIOS program, the concept was to develop the capability of local organizations to lead BIOS activities and to create a structure that sustains

the BIOS presence even after CAFF no longer plays the coordinating role.

In Merced and Stanislaus Counties, the BIOS program is successfully making that transition with the help of two local Resource

Conservation Districts (RCDs). The current work with the East Merced RCD and the East Stanislaus RCD is designed not only to

transfer BIOS outreach and activities to local control but also to create and document a model for other BIOS projects.

East Merced RCD has already hired a coordinator to take over the BIOS project in that area. Coordinating a BIOS project takes

an array of skills—event planning and production, project planning, and group facilitation—and a background in agriculture, including knowledge of agronomy and pest management. Also necessary are skills in database management, newsletter publication, and

media outreach. To facilitate the transition, a Transition Coordinator from the BIOS program is mentoring the new East Merced

RCD coordinator. As part of the mentor training, the RCD coordinator will meet the network of growers, researchers, extensionists,

government representatives (including State and Regional Board representatives), and industry leaders with whom CAFF has established relationships through the BIOS program.

In addition, a Transition Advisory Team (TAT) has been established to guide the RCD program much as the current management teams now do for BIOS projects. Through the TAT, the RCD program will remain connected to the communities of growers,

educators, agency personnel, and agricultural consultants that team members represent. Over the coming year, new possibilities for

program activities and funding sources will be identified and prioritized and BIOS activities will continue to evolve. Growers are
Innovative State Programs 189

being consulted regarding the activities most important to them—the activities they most want to see

continued and the new subject areas into which they would like to see BIOS activities expand.

Contact Information: Claire Murray, 530-756-8518 (ext. 15)

Maui County Erosion and Sediment Control Training Project:

Workshops Explain Ordinance, Teach BMP Installation

Hawaii’s Maui County includes the islands of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai and thus many differentwatersheds that are diverse in geophysical features, soil types, rainfall, and coastal water uses. The

State Department of Health lists the waters of West Maui, Kahului Harbor, and the South Molokai

shoreline as water quality-limited segments because they often exceed nutrient and turbidity standards.

Construction and grading projects were identified as the primary source of water quality problems.

Maui County’s grading ordinance, last revised in 1975, did not specifically require the installation of

best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion and sedimentation and did not require the posting

of performance bonds for large projects. In addition, much grading work was unregulated because of

exemptions in the grading ordinance for certain types of grading activities. Thus, construction and grading activities resulted in soil erosion, causing sediment and other pollutants to enter receiving water bodies. The Maui County grading ordinance needed to be revised.

Revising Maui County’s grading ordinance

With support of 319 funding, a revised grading ordinance was developed to require erosion and sediment

control BMPs for all construction projects, including minor work that does not require a permit. The

County Council adopted this revised grading ordinance on August 10, 1998.

The revised ordinance met federal guidance under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. The provisions of the grading ordinance before and after the revision are summarized in

the table. The major changes are the following:

• All projects, even those that do not require grading permits, must use BMPs to control erosion,

sedimentation, and dust to the maximum extent practicable.

• Projects that aren’t in the Special Management Area (SMA) and that have excavation or fill

quantities of 100 cubic yards or more or exceed 4 feet in height require grading permits.

• Projects in the SMA have stricter requirements. Grading permits are required when excavation

or fill quantities are 50 cubic yards or more or when excavation or fill exceeds 2 feet in height.

In addition, grading or mining a coastal dune is prohibited, as is importing soil for fill material

in the shoreline setback area. Filling with sand is acceptable.

• An erosion control plan showing BMPs to control erosion, sedimentation, and dust to the

maximum extent practicable must be submitted with the grading permit application.

• Grubbing and grading permit fees are revised in the annual budget.
190 Innovative State Programs

• New provisions require corrections for unpermitted earthwork and impose penalties when

earthwork is started before a permit is issued.

• A performance bond is required for all earthwork involving more than 500 cubic yards.

Raising awareness of the new ordinance

Another goal of the project is to train engineers, contractors, inspectors, and the public in planning and

installing effective BMPs. Workshops were held on Maui, Molokai, and Lanai to explain the new grading

ordinance, teach the procedures for deriving an effective erosion control plan, show the latest BMP

technology, and discuss the proper methods for installing BMPs. More than 100 people attended the

workshops and found them to be very informative and useful. The success of this project has inspired

other counties in the state (Honolulu, Kauai) to revise or consider revising their erosion control standards to match Maui’s efforts.

Contact Information: Charles Jencks, Director of Public Works and Waste Management, County of Maui, 2000 South High Street,

Wailuku, HI 96793
Innovative State Programs 191

Idaho’s Dairy Pollution Prevention Initiative: Unique

Program Eliminates Direct Dairy Discharges

The Idaho Dairy Pollution Prevention Initiative is an unusual public-private partnership formed toresolve major environmental problems not adequately addressed by the federal and state environmental agencies that traditionally regulate such problems. The partnership is an alliance among two federal and two state agencies, an industry group, and a state university.

In 1995 it was determined that 280 Idaho dairies (about one-fourth of the total number) were discharging untreated animal and dairy process waste to roadside ditches, streams, and ground water. Dairy

waste discharges are typically high in levels of Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Cryptosporidium. When ingested, these microorganisms can cause illness and death. Some water bodies that had been receiving

dairy waste discharges were also used for human contact sports and as drinking water sources. No

known outbreaks of disease can be attributed directly to discharges from Idaho dairies; however, fish

kills have been recorded on several occasions.

Before the Dairy Initiative, dairy waste control efforts by EPA and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) were somewhat misdirected and only marginally effective. EPA regulations

generally restrict coverage to only those dairies with more than 200 cows. Most (approximately 70 percent) of the 280 dairies discovered discharging fell beneath this 200-cow cutoff. Unless a complaint was

filed, it was quite possible for discharges from the smaller dairies to go undetected by EPA and IDEQ.

Dairy MOU partners

The Idaho Dairy Pollution Prevention Memorandum of Understanding (Dairy MOU) was signed in

October 1995. It assigned the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) the lead role of interacting

directly with the dairy industry to address the concerns of IDEQ and EPA. A set of guidelines and

criteria were jointly conceived.

Under the Dairy MOU, EPA and IDEQ agreed to train ISDA inspectors and support the ISDA in

circumstances of major environmental or public health risk and the Idaho Dairy Association (IDA)

agreed to contact and inform the industry, promote the program, and educate IDA members about the

values of environmental stewardship along with production capacity. To establish this innovative

program’s credibility and to build public confidence, all parties decided to review the program annually in

a public forum and make the results available to interested parties.

Though not signatory parties to the Dairy MOU, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and

the University of Idaho Extension Service are considered partners in that they played key roles in developing and implementing the Idaho Dairy Initiative.

Dairy MOU components

All Idaho dairies are required to obtain a license to sell milk for human consumption. The ISDA had

administered a comprehensive inspection program focusing on milk sanitation for all dairies but had not
192 Innovative State Programs

addressed the waste problem. The Dairy MOU capitalized on the frequent presence of ISDA inspectors

and provided for their expanded role to ensure that all dairies could contain and properly handle their

waste. Each dairy and its waste storage and handling system would now be inspected for compliance at

least annually. (Inspections averaged 2.5 times per year in 2000.) In early 1996 state legislation and rules

were developed, providing ISDA with authority to require full containment of dairy waste. Under the

new ISDA rules, dairies found to be in noncompliance cannot sell milk until they agree to implement a

plan for corrective action.

The new ISDA rules also require all dairies to construct large-capacity waste containment ponds that

are less prone to leakage than older ponds. These restrictions are more protective of surface and ground

water than the former IDEQ and EPA requirements. In addition, the new ISDA rules have been modified to require that dairy waste be land applied only in accordance with an approved nutrient management plan. These plans are required on all dairies by July 2001 and will ensure that the waste will be

balanced against the crop uptake and not be lost to groundwater or surface waters.

Measures of success

Although the earlier EPA penalties were significant, their deterrence ability was diminished by recognition that fewer than 5 percent of the dairies would be inspected in any one year. Since the program’s

inception, ISDA has conducted more than 14,000 inspections of dairy farms, resulting in an increase in

inspections from an average of 40 per year to 2,800 per year. The dairies now understand that they will

be inspected frequently, and this level of certainty has caused dairies with marginal facilities to be much

more proactive in installing and managing proper waste handling facilities.

Improvement in compliance has resulted in the virtual elimination of direct discharges to the environment. In 1996, 25 percent of the dairies had some type of discharge violation. This percentage has

dropped to less than 0.5 percent of the dairies. In addition, violations not related to discharges have

dropped by 76 percent (ISDA 2000 Annual Report).

The number of dairy waste handling facilities put into place since 1996 also represents a strong

measure of program success. The new program has directly resulted in more than $10 million worth of

construction for more than 500 dairy waste containment ponds and handling facilities. This significant

increase in environmental protection would not have been possible without the innovative partnerships

formed as a result of the Dairy Initiative.

A model for other states

Because of the success of the Idaho Dairy Initiative, several states and industry groups are considering

adopting similar approaches. States considering the Initiative as a model include Oregon, Georgia, Ohio,

Minnesota, and Florida.

In August 1998 Vice President Al Gore’s “Hammer Award” for reinventing government was presented to each of the signatory parties of the Idaho Dairy MOU, to the University of Idaho Extension

Service, and to nine individuals who were key contributors to the successful negotiation of the MOU. In
Innovative State Programs 193

early 1999 EPA awarded Silver Medals to the EPA employees who had contributed significantly to the

development and implementation of the MOU. Most recently, the Dairy Initiative has been named as a

semifinalist in the Innovations in American Government Award, sponsored by the Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Contact Information: Marv Patten, Dairy Bureau Chief, Department of Agriculture (ISDA), 2270 Old Penitentiary Road, Boise, ID

83701, 208-332-8550, mpatten@agri.state.id.us; Bub Loiselle, Manager, NPDES Compliance Unit, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, 206-553-6901, loiselle.bub@epa.gov

Creating a Storm Water Utility in Chicopee, Massachusetts:

Project Praised as Outstanding Planning Project

The importance of storm water management in Massachusetts will undoubtedly increase in the coming years as Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm

water management program goes into effect, requiring communities to take action to reduce pollution

coming from storm water. The number of Massachusetts communities covered by NPDES storm water

permits will dramatically increase from 2 to 191 when Phase II becomes effective.

In 1997 the Massachusetts Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and the City of Chicopee, Massachusetts, received 319 funding to investigate the feasibility of creating a storm water utility. Like electric

and water utilities, storm water utilities collect fees from residents to pay for a “product.” The product

offered by storm water utilities is storm water management to control or eliminate water pollution, erosion, and flooding.

Researching the legal framework

One of the first steps was to research existing utilities around the country to identify key issues. To effectively present the information developed to the public, it was neatly packaged into a “how-to” kit. The kit

includes the research on storm water utilities across the country, summarized in an easy-to-read format

for both a professional audience (briefing papers) and the public (graphical summaries). The first 500

copies of the how-to kit were in high demand. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection is now producing 1,000 additional copies in anticipation of the interest in storm water management techniques that will accompany Phase II of the NPDES storm water permit program.

A critical part of the project also included reviewing Massachusetts’ laws to determine the legality of

creating storm water utilities. All Massachusetts laws and regulations pertaining to storm water management were reviewed and summarized in the how-to kit. A model storm water management ordinance was

also developed and included in the kit.

Although it was determined that municipalities may create storm water utilities, the legal framework

is weak and would be strengthened by state enabling legislation. Draft state enabling legislation, developed as part of the project, is being sponsored for the 2001 Massachusetts legislative session. When

enacted, it will strengthen communities’ authority to put storm water management utilities in place.
194 Innovative State Programs

Chicopee pilot program

The project also involved implementing a pilot storm water utility or fee-based management program in

Chicopee, Massachusetts. Chicopee is an old industrial city of 56,000 people. It occupies 24 square miles

in western Massachusetts at the confluence of the Connecticut and Chicopee Rivers. Urban runoff and

combined sewer overflows are the most significant pollution problems on the lower Connecticut River in

Massachusetts. Chicopee straddles the two segments of the lower Connecticut River that do not support

their use classifications.

Although the City of Chicopee did not establish a storm water utility per se, the city opted to incorporate storm water management into the existing Wastewater Department to save on administrative costs

and take advantage of the expertise of the Wastewater Department’s staff. Chicopee also passed an

ordinance to collect fees from residents specifically for the purpose of managing storm water. The city

conducted extensive research before instituting the storm water ordinance. Residents said that they

would be willing to pay a new fee for storm water management if they were sure that the money would

be used to address the problems directly affecting them, such as sewer back-ups during wet weather. The

ordinance was therefore designed to address such concerns.

Instituting a specific storm water fee rather than increasing sewer fees to cover the costs of storm

water management had two advantages. First, it meant that Chicopee could assess fees based on the

amount of storm water generated by each property tied into the sewer system. Second, the city expects

that over time, large storm water generators will begin to invest in best management practices and

remediation measures to treat their storm water in order to reduce their storm water management fee,

thus reducing the amount of storm water pollution being generated.

Chicopee’s storm water management fee has been in place since December 1998. In the first year,

the city raised some $400,000 for storm water management; by the third year, revenues had increased to

$550,000. To date, the money has been used for activities such as stepping up cleaning of catch basins,

purchasing a catch basin cleaning truck, grouting joints in the sewer system to stop leakage and inflow,

stenciling storm drains, and cleaning sewer lines. Chicopee has also used the funds to leverage additional

state loan funding for a $5 million sewer separation project.

A model of success

In fall 2000 the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and the City of Chicopee were jointly awarded the

Massachusetts Chapter of the American Planning Association’s Outstanding Planning Project Award.

The how-to kit and Chicopee’s storm water management pilot have been widely presented as successful

models, and interest in replicating these concepts in other municipalities has been high. The City of

Holyoke, another old industrial community in western Massachusetts, is now actively working to develop

a similar storm water management program.

The most obvious short-term results of this project are the production of a successful model to

create storm water utilities (or, at a minimum, a fee-based storm water management program) and
Innovative State Programs 195

Chicopee’s successful piloting of this type of program in Massachusetts. The fully researched, piloted

example of how a municipal storm water management program can be developed and funded within the

context of Massachusetts’ laws, climate, and geography is a valuable tool that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection can now present as an option for Phase II communities.

Contact Information: Jane Peirce, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 627 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01608,

508-767-2792; Jane.Peirce@state.ma.us

New York’s Agricultural Environmental Management Program:

Incentive-based Program Helps Farmers Meet Tough Standards

The Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) Program has put New York State in the forefront of a national effort to help farmers identify and address agricultural nonpoint source pollution. New York’s AEM Program is a statewide voluntary, incentive-based program that helps all farmers

operate environmentally sound and economically viable businesses. The AEM Program provides costsharing and educational and technical assistance for developing and implementing agricultural plans. The

plans enable farmers of operations of all sizes to remain good stewards of the land, maintain the economic viability of the farm operation, and comply with federal, state, and local regulations relating to

water quality and other environmental concerns.

The AEM partnership of state, federal, and local agencies, conservation representatives, private

sector businesses, and farmers has been recognized and bolstered by AEM legislation proposed by New

York’s governor and passed by the state’s Senate and Assembly in June 2000. On August 24, 2000, the

governor signed the AEM Bill into law, codifying the program to help New York’s agricultural community in its stewardship of the state’s soil and water resources.

The partnership operates at both the state and local levels. The New York State Department of

Agriculture and Markets and the New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee provide leadership at the state level, while Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) provide local leadership.

The flexibility of the AEM Program allows the partners to address both statewide and specific local

water quality needs. The local delivery of AEM, along with state funding support, has resulted in participation approaching 8000 farms statewide.

AEM funding

The AEM Program is funded by a mix of section 319 money and grants from the state’s 1996 Clean

Water/Clean Air Bond Act and the State Environmental Protection Fund. The ability of farmers to

access funding through SWCDs has been a driving factor in farmers’ acceptance of and participation in

the AEM Program. The governor, with the assistance of the state’s Soil and Water Conservation Committee, awarded about $6.3 million in 2000 from the state’s Environmental Protection Fund and Clean
196 Innovative State Programs

Water/Clean Air Bond Act for planning and implementing best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or reduce nonpoint source pollution to water bodies. Through fiscal year 1998, a total of $1,863,660

in section 319 money had been used to develop and promote the program in New York’s agricultural

community. In 2000 the total allocation from state funding sources stood at $20.4 million, with annual

funding showing a consistent trend upward.

New York’s response to tougher standards

AEM offers farmers a way to comply with stricter regulatory requirements, advance the state’s water

quality objectives, and meet business objectives on the farm at the same time. The concepts, partnerships,

and materials that constitute AEM grew from many sources, including watershed projects and the national Farm*A*Syst program.

The AEM program begins with the farmer’s expressing an interest in the program. After that, there

are five tiers to be completed. Under Tier I, a short questionnaire surveys the farmer’s current activities

and future plans and begins to identify potential environmental concerns. Tier II involves completing

worksheets that document current environmental stewardship while identifying and prioritizing environmental concerns. Tier III involves the development of a conservation plan that is directly tailored toward

the goals for the individual farm. This plan is mutually developed by the AEM Coordinator, the farmer,

and several members of the cooperating agency staff. Under Tier IV, agricultural agencies and consultants provide the farmer with technical, educational, and financial assistance to implement BMPs on the

farm, using Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) standards and guidance from professional

engineers. The last tier includes ongoing evaluations to ensure that AEM helps protect both the environment and the viability of farm businesses.

AEM provides a mechanism for all sizes and types of farms to meet the requirements of various state

and federal environmental laws and regulations within the unique limitations of each farm’s resource base.

For example, the AEM Program is helping farmers meet New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation (DEC) permit requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). As a response to federal requirements, the state has developed a general permit for certain large livestock farms. As

a result, more than 600 CAFOs have filed Notices of Intent to comply with the DEC permit requirements.

To meet an increasing workload, the AEM Steering Committee adopted a certification process in

conjunction with NRCS to get qualified AEM planners into the field. Certification assures environmental

regulators, producers, and the public of quality work in AEM. The program has now trained 104 persons

from the public and private sectors in the development of comprehensive nutrient management plans

(CNMPs). To date, seven planners have been certified, resulting in the completion of CNMPs for 33 farms.

Looking ahead

Agriculture is a multibillion-dollar business in New York State, and the AEM Program works to keep all

of the state’s farms environmentally sound and economically viable. Every farm is valuable for what it

contributes to the economy, the environment, and the beauty of New York State, and AEM is strength-
Innovative State Programs 197

South Carolina Forestry BMP Compliance Program:

Proactive Strategy Raises BMP Compliance Rate

I

n South Carolina, as well as in most other states with large tracts of forested land where timber is

harvested, nonpoint source runoff due to the lack of proper practices can be a threat to water quality. To address this situation, the South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC) adopted a set of silvicultural best management practices (BMPs) and published South Carolina’s Best Management Practices for Forestry

in 1994. To ensure compliance with the BMPs, the Commission focuses on a proactive strategy for preventing nonpoint source pollution, using a multipronged approach.

One component of the program provides voluntary courtesy BMP exams to forest landowners, foresters,

and forestry operators. Specially trained Forestry BMP Specialists, located in each of the SCFC’s three regions,

conduct these exams. About 500 harvesting operations were evaluated during fiscal year 2000. Ongoing forestry operations are located through regular flights over high-priority watersheds, through voluntary notification, and through response to complaints. Courtesy BMP exams are then offered to the landowner, forester,

and logging contractor. Based on the exam results, site-specific recommendations regarding BMP implementation are provided. Recommendations may include streamside management zones, forest road construction,

stream crossing design and location, harvesting systems, and site preparation techniques. Where damage has

already occurred, recommendations for mitigating the damage are offered.

After the harvesting operation is completed, a final on-site inspection is conducted to determine whether

the appropriate BMPs were implemented. BMP compliance is significantly higher—98 percent according to a

1999 statistical survey—on sites where a courtesy BMP exam has been conducted. A monthly summary report

of completed courtesy BMP exams is provided to the state water quality agency and to timber buyers. The

report identifies loggers who failed to implement the appropriate water quality BMPs. Failure to implement

BMPs might negatively influence a forest industry company’s decision to purchase forest products and services from the logger. The threat of being on “the list” has proven to be a real incentive to loggers to implement appropriate BMPs. In addition, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control,

the state’s water quality agency, may initiate enforcement action based on the referral.

Another component of the program is education. Forestry BMP Specialists conduct BMP training

throughout the state. Educational programs are tailored to the unique operating conditions in each physiographic region. More than 1,800 loggers, landowners, foresters, and forestry operators have attended

the Timber Operating Professional (TOP) Logger course since its inception in 1995. The program is

ening this legacy for the future. We all depend on clean drinking water and wholesome food for our

existence. With sufficient support and assistance, through Agricultural Environmental Management, New

York State’s farm families will provide both of these.

Contact Information: Barbara Silvestri, New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee, 1 Winners Circle, Albany, NY 12235,

518-457-3738, silvestrb@nysnet.net
198 Innovative State Programs

produced in cooperation with the South Carolina Forestry Association. In addition, short courses on site

preparation, forest road construction, and other topics are offered annually. BMP educational presentations are given throughout the year to forest landowner associations, forestry clubs, civic groups, environmental groups, and other interested parties.

This innovative program has proven to be very effective in increasing the BMP compliance rate

statewide. Surveys conducted over the past 10 years show that a statistically valid increase in forestryrelated BMP compliance on harvesting sites has occurred. In fact, the compliance rate rose from 84.5

percent in 1989 to 91.5 percent in 1999. Compliance with site preparation BMPs was 86.4 percent in

1996 and rose to 98 percent in the second evaluation, completed in the spring of 1999.

BMP compliance monitoring continues. During FY 2000, the SCFC initiated an additional monitoring cycle of harvesting and site preparation BMP compliance, consisting of (1) initial site location and

harvest monitoring and (2) the initial site preparation compliance evaluation.

Contact Information: Daryl Jones, South Carolina Forestry Commission, 803-896-8817, djones@forestry.state.sc.us

Statewide Clean Marina Programs: BMPs, Recognition,

and Outreach Help Protect Coastal Resources

Many states across the nation are designing voluntary programs to address a broad range ofissues related to the environmental impacts of marina operations. These “Clean Marina Programs” provide information, guidance, and technical assistance to marinas, local governments, and recreational boaters on how to minimize their impacts on water quality and coastal resources. To reduce adverse impacts, states are promoting voluntary adoption of best management practices (BMPs) cited in

the states’ clean marina guidebooks. They also are establishing some type of recognition or awards program for participation in the program and adoption of these practices and are providing outreach activities to further promote environmentally responsible marina and boating practices. A few examples of

such programs follow.

Maryland’s Clean Marina Initiative

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources developed the state’s Clean Marina Initiative, and EPA,

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the state of Maryland provided financial

support. The Initiative distributes a comprehensive pollution prevention guidebook for marinas with

advice on topics like marina design and maintenance, storm water management, vessel maintenance and

repair, sewage handling, waste containment and disposal, and more. The guidebook is written for managers of full-service marinas with boatyards, but it is equally applicable to marinas with limited services,

independent boatyards, and marine contractors.
Innovative State Programs 199

Marinas, boatyards, and yacht clubs that adopt a significant proportion of the BMPs suggested in

the guidebook will be recognized as “Maryland Clean Marinas.” They will receive a certificate acknowledging their environmentally responsible actions, authorization to use the Maryland Clean Marina logo

on their letterhead and in their advertising, a flag to fly from their property, and promotion by the Clean

Marina Initiative in publications, on the World Wide Web, and at public events.

For more information on Maryland’s Clean Marina Initiative, see www.dnr.state.md.us/boating/

cleanmarina.

Virginia’s Clean Marina Program

On January 12, 2001, Virginia’s Clean Marina Program was launched as an implementation element of

the Virginia Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, supporting compliance with section 6217 of

the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Virginia has established a Marina Technical

Advisory Program to work with marinas to achieve voluntary designation as a “Virginia Clean Marina”

by following a series of steps. The first step involves a pledge by a marina operator to work toward becoming a Virginia Clean Marina. Second, the marina operator conducts a self-assessment using an evaluation checklist that contain criteria taken directly from Virginia’s Clean Marina Guidebook of marina BMPs.

After the checklist is complete, the operator requests a formal site visit from the Marina Technical and

Environmental Advisory Committee to confirm the adequate assessment scores. Once scores are confirmed, the Committee recommends a Clean Marina designation. Designated facilities report annually to

retain their designation, and they are encouraged to consider additional projects that prevent pollution.

For more information on Virginia’s Clean Marina Program, see www.deq.state.va.us/vacleanmarina.

North Carolina’s Clean Marina Program

The National Marine Environmental Education Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works to clean

up waterways for better recreational boating, developed North Carolina’s Clean Marina Program. The

program was initiated in July 2000 as a joint project between the North Carolina Marine Trades Services

and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. As in the Maryland and Virginia programs,

marina owners are asked to voluntarily complete an evaluation form to determine their use of specific

BMPs. If a marina meets the criteria, it is eligible to fly the Clean Marina flag and use the logo in its

advertisements. Through the promotion, boaters are able to identify marinas that care about the cleanliness of area waterways.

For more information on North Carolina’s Clean Marina Program, see www.ncmta.com/Regulatory/CleanMarineIndex.htm.

Other state marina programs

Many other states are also developing their own Clean Marina Programs. Other programs include the

Clean Texas Marina Program (see www.cleanmarinas.org); Florida’s Clean Marina Program (see

www.dep.state.fl.us/law/bosp/grants/clean_marina); and the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Clean Marina

Initiative (see www.tva.gov/environment/water/boating.htm).
200 Innovative State Programs
State Funding Programs 201

State Funding Programs

States are increasingly dedicating substantial funding above and beyond the federal funding under section

319 and the required 40 percent state match to support and sustain expanded nonpoint source management programs. States are using many different mechanisms to fund their nonpoint source activities,

including bond initiatives, low-interest loan programs, grants, and land acquisition programs. States are

also increasing private sector involvement in program implementation so that they can progressively

decrease their current reliance on government funds to support implementation of nonpoint source best

management practices. This section highlights a variety of such programs that states are administering,

beyond the 319 match, to address the effects of nonpoint source pollution.

States With Significant Funding Beyond 319 Match

California’s Water Bond Program

I

n March 2000 California voters approved Proposition 13, the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 (2000

Water Bond), authorizing the state to sell $1.97 billion in general obligation bonds to support safe

drinking water, flood protection, and water reliability projects throughout the state. The budget authorizes $468 million specifically for watershed protection, dedicating $90 million of this amount to implementing watershed management plans (to reduce flooding, control erosion, improve water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial species habitats, restore native vegetation and riparian zones, and restore

beneficial uses of water) and $95 million of this to river parkway acquisition and riparian habitat restoration. The budget authorizes $30.5 million specifically to the State Revolving Fund Loan Subaccount for

the purposes of providing loans pursuant to the Clean Water Act. In addition, the budget specifically

authorizes $100 million for nonpoint source pollution control activities and $90 million for coastal

nonpoint control activities over the next several years.

For the money specifically authorized for nonpoint source activities, grants of up to $5 million (per

project) may be awarded to local public agencies or nonprofit organizations formed by landowners to

prepare and implement local nonpoint source plans. Projects must use best management practices (BMPs)

or management measures and must demonstrate a capability to sustain water quality benefits for a period of

20 years. Categories of nonpoint source pollution addressed by projects may include, but are not limited to,

silviculture, agriculture, urban runoff, mining, hydromodification, grazing, on-site disposal systems,

boatyards and marinas, and animal feeding operations. Projects to address nonpoint source pollution may

include, but are not limited to, wildfire management, installation of vegetative systems to filter or retard

pollutant loading, incentive programs or large-scale demonstration programs to reduce commercial reliance
202 State Funding Programs

on polluting substances or to increase acceptance of alternative methods and materials, and engineered

features to minimize impacts of nonpoint source pollution. Projects must have defined water quality or

beneficial use goals.

For more information on California’s Water Bond Program, see www.swrcb.ca.gov/prop13/

index.html.

California’s Loan Programs

The California State Board administers two funds that provide loans to help private parties controlnonpoint sources of pollution: the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program and the more recent

Agricultural Drain Management Program (ADMP) created by Proposition 204 in 1996. Most of the SRF

dollars (up to $100 million) come from the federal government. The state matches the federal contribution on an 80 percent federal/20 percent state basis. In addition to the SRF, $27.5 million was made

available to the ADMP with the passage of Proposition 204 in 1996. Of this amount, $5 million has been

obligated for dairy waste management. Dollars from previous SRF loans that have been repaid are also

available to make new loans.

Merced County is an example of the local beneficiaries of California’s loan programs. The county

has borrowed $10 million from the SRF Loan Program and $5 million from the ADMP to make loans to

Merced County dairies through a county-administered mini-loan program. The loans may be used to

reduce drainage runoff, which is high in nitrates and salinity and currently threatens the quality of the

county’s groundwater and surface waters. Most of the money is expected to be used to install structural

improvements for animal waste source control. The county will also use a portion of the funds to provide a public education and outreach program to educate dairymen, as well as to establish criteria for

evaluating problem dairies and to develop solutions to control animal waste. The dairy industry is growing in Merced County, and the county’s goal is to ensure that dairies under its jurisdiction are properly

operated so that they comply with county, state, and federal laws.

Florida Forever Program

The 2-year effort to enact a successor to the Preservation 2000 Program, which had acquired 1 millionacres and was successful in saving many of Florida’s beaches, rivers, bays, forests, coral reefs, and

estuaries, culminated in the passage of the Florida Forever bill on April 30, 1999. While devoting major

resources toward land acquisition, Florida Forever also recognizes and refocuses on Florida’s water resource needs. The bill devotes 24 percent of funds to urban efforts, recognizing both the need for

greater environmental protection and the need for more recreation space in urban areas. A significant

feature is the creation of Florida’s first-ever land acquisition advisory committee. This committee will
State Funding Programs 203

clearly focus on measurable goals and invest taxpayer funds wisely to develop measurable statewide

objectives for Florida Forever.

Florida Forever created a 10-year, $3 billion program. The state will receive about $300 million each

year through a bond program. The funds will be apportioned among the Department of Environmental

Protection (with 35 percent of the funds for acquisition programs, 1.5 percent for recreation and parks,

and 1.5 percent for greenways and trails); the Water Management Districts (35 percent); the Department

of Community Affairs, Florida Communities Trust (24 percent); the new Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (1.5 percent); and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry (1.5 percent).

For more information on the Florida Forever program, see www.dca.state.fl.us/ffct/

florida_forever_program.htm.

Georgia’s Greenspace Program

Georgia’s governor signed the Greenspace Program into law on April 16, 2000. The program is avoluntary, noncompetitive, county-based program. It provides for awards of formula grants to

eligible counties if they develop and implement plans to permanently protect at least 20 percent of the

county’s geographic area as natural, undeveloped greenspace that furthers one or more of the nine stated

goals of the program. Five of the goals address water-quality protection, including flood protection;

wetland protection; reduction of erosion; protection of riparian buffers; and water quality protection for

rivers, streams, and lakes.

For fiscal year 2001, $30 million has been appropriated for the program. Counties are not required

to provide matching funds, but they must commit to providing adequate stewardship of the lands once

acquired.

For more information on Georgia’s Greenspace Program, see www.ganet.org/dnr/greenspace/

index.html.

Iowa’s Water Quality Initiative

I

owa’s new Water Quality Initiative (2000) provides $11.2 million per year for a number of water quality

improvement projects throughout the state. Highlights of the Initiative include financial incentives to

install conservation buffers, conduct water quality monitoring, and support local watershed protection

projects.

The Initiative provides $1.5 million to accelerate the implementation of the Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP) through soil and water conservation district field offices. Through the CRP program,

farmers receive payments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish riparian buffers,
204 State Funding Programs

grassed waterways, contour buffer strips, field borders, and other buffers on private farmlands. The

buffer initiative will provide funding for additional field office staff to prepare materials, contact prospective participants, and process applications. Local government and private, nonprofit organizations

are being challenged to provide matching funds to further leverage the initiative. Funds are also being

used to provide $100/acre sign-up bonus payments for eligible practices of contour buffer strips, shallow water areas for wildlife, and cross-wind trap strips. The first-year goal is to enroll an additional

100,000 acres in the continuous-sign-up Conservation Reserve Program.

The Initiative also provides $1.9 million to conduct an ongoing assessment of Iowa’s rivers and

streams, lakes, groundwater, beaches, wetlands, and precipitation. In addition, the program focuses on

public education on water quality issues and encourages participation in volunteer water quality monitoring. Two years ago, only $120,000 from federal sources was being spent on water monitoring in Iowa.

The Initiative provides $2.7 million to develop and encourage integrated approaches to address

multiobjective water quality protection, flood control, erosion control, recreation, wildlife habitat, and

other resource protection issues. Funding is provided for watershed solutions to water quality and water

management problems that affect local communities, the state, and the country. The first year goal is to

financially support more than 20 local watershed protection projects that are providing improved flood

protection and erosion control and are beginning to address the water quality problems of the state’s

impaired waters. Assistance will be provided to local communities and Soil and Water Conservation

Districts for the development of water quality projects and funding applications. The Watershed Task

Force will complete its study of Iowa watershed protection efforts and will report (with recommendations) on the status of watershed protection needs, program capacity, and local initiatives.

The Initiative provides financial incentives for many other programs, including $600,000 for septic

system renovations (to match $2.4 million from the State Revolving Fund); $2 million in financial incentives to install soil conservation practices on private farmlands (with 5 percent directed to lands in the

watersheds of high-priority, publicly owned lakes in the state); $372,000 to develop new or improved

water quality standards and assessment techniques; $1.5 million to restore or construct wetlands to intercept tile runoff from agricultural lands; $153,000 to develop an efficient Total Maximum Daily Load

program; $200,000 to educate local floodplain managers; $250,000 to review and issue National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System permits; $850,000 for demonstrations of integrated farm and livestock

management; $70,000 to support the Department of Natural Resources’ volunteer programs; and

$195,000 to provide geographic information system data to local watershed groups.
State Funding Programs 205

Maine’s Funding Programs

I

n 2000 the Maine Department of Agriculture used a $2.5 million state general fund appropriation to

establish the Nutrient Management Grant Program, a cost share program to help producers construct manure-handling facilities to comply with the state’s Nutrient Management Law.

Maine also established the Watershed Improvement Financial Assistance Partnership in 2000. It

provides financial assistance to help state Soil and Water Conservation Districts conduct nonpoint

source pollution control projects to restore or protect lakes, streams, or coastal waters that are polluted

or considered threatened. The funding is from the Environmental Protection Agency ($240,000), administered by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP), and the State of Maine general

fund ($160,000), administered by the Maine Department of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Resources.

EPA-New England and the Maine Association of Conservation Districts are cooperating partners.

Maine’s 16 Districts joined together to form four watershed regions for this program. Annually each

region is eligible to receive a grant of $100,000.

MDEP and Agriculture established the Nutrient Management Loan program in 1999. Loans are

available through the Financial Authority of Maine. These loans have an effective interest rate of 4 percent the first year and 3 percent each year thereafter for up to 20 years. They may be used for building

storage and handling facilities for manure and milk room wastes, including equipment that is used solely

for handling waste. In 1999 MDEP also issued $500,000 grants of state bond funds for watershed

projects under the Priority Watershed Protection Grants Program.

In 1998 the Maine Department of Transportation established the Surface Water Quality Protection

Program to help reduce polluted runoff from highways. The program uses federal Transportation Equity

Act funds (about $200,000 per year). The projects funded usually involve reconstruction of highway

drainage systems to reduce sediment discharges to waters.

The state legislature initiated the Maine Overboard Discharge Program in 1989 to help fund replacement systems that would eliminate licensed overboard discharges in certain areas. Licensed overboard

discharges are treated discharges, to surface bodies of water, of domestic pollutants not conveyed to a

municipal or quasi-municipal wastewater treatment facility. High priority is given to shellfish areas that

could be opened for harvesting if the licensed overboard discharges were eliminated. The state share of

funding for projects in this grant program comes from bond issues approved by the voters. Since 1989,

$4.5 million has been used.

The Small Community Grant Program is a water pollution control program administered by MDEP.

Funding levels range from $500,000 to $1 million per year, and a state bond is used to fund the program.

The goals are to improve water quality, protect public health, and reopen shellfishing areas that are affected by wastewater discharges. The program may provide financial and technical assistance in solving

wastewater disposal problems in unsewered areas. For qualifying systems, grants for 25 to 100 percent of

the replacement costs for a year-round residence, 25 to 50 percent for a business, and 25 to 50 percent

for a seasonal or second home are available.
206 State Funding Programs

Clean Michigan Initiative

I

n 1998 Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved the Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI), authorizing

$675 million in state bonds to finance environmental and natural resources protection programs.

A large portion of the CMI ($50 million) has been earmarked for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control grants. These grant funds can be used to implement the physical improvements, such as structural

and vegetative BMPs, recommended in approved watershed management plans. The Nonpoint Source

Pollution Control grants are budgeted at $7 million per year through 2006. An additional $90 million has

been allocated to the Clean Water Fund to implement a comprehensive water quality monitoring program

in the state. That fund will also be used to protect high-quality waters, eliminate illicit connections to

storm drains, address failing on-site septic systems, plug abandoned wells, implement storm water management activities, implement recommendations found in Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, and implement agricultural BMPs in targeted watersheds.

For example, $5 million of the Clean Water Fund will be used to provide funding as state match for

the federal Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which will implement practices on

agricultural lands to improve water quality and wildlife habitat. The state of Michigan applied to the U.S.

Department of Agriculture for a CREP grant of $126 million, with a total state match of $25.75 million.

The practices to be implemented include 60,000 acres of riparian buffer strips, filter strips, field windbreaks, and wetland restoration, as well as 20,000 acres of wetland restoration, shallow water areas for

wildlife, permanent native grasses, and permanent introduced grasses and legumes.

The CMI grants are available to local units of government and nonprofit organizations. Watershed

management plans are approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and are often

developed by local agencies with federal Clean Water Act support.

For more information on the Clean Michigan Initiative, see www.deq.state.mi.us/exec/cmi/cmiimp.html.

Minnesota’s Clean Water Partnership Program

Minnesota’s Clean Water Partnership was created in 1987 to address pollution associated with runoff from agricultural and urban areas. The program provides local governments with resources

to protect and improve lakes, streams, and groundwater. Financial assistance available through the program falls into two categories: grants and low-interest loans. Grants are available for up to 50 percent of

project costs; loans may be used for only the project implementation phase and may cover the entire cost

of implementation or supplement a grant. The implementation phase involves putting in place BMPs

such as sedimentation ponds, manure management, conservation tillage, terraces, new ordinances, wetland restoration, fertilizer management, education, or other methods designed to reduce nonpoint source

pollution.
State Funding Programs 207

During the 1999 application cycle for financial assistance, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

awarded $2,370,107 in grants and $5,778,524 in loans. Through 11 application cycles, more than

$30 million of state, federal, and local funds have been allocated to protect and improve lakes, streams,

groundwater, wellhead areas, and wetlands.

For more information on Minnesota’s Clean Water Partnership Program, see www.pca.state.mn.us/

water/cwpartner.html.

Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Program

The Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Program, created in 1986, has two primary components: RIM andRIM Reserve. The RIM Program focuses on improving fish and wildlife habitat on public lands,

and the RIM Reserve Program focuses on acquiring easements on private land.

The RIM Reserve Program protects water quality, reduces soil erosion, and enhances fish and wildlife habitat by retiring marginal lands from agricultural production and restoring previously drained wetlands. The owners of these lands are paid a percentage of the assessed value of their land to voluntarily

enroll it in a conservation easement. A variety of land types are eligible, including drained wetlands,

riparian agricultural lands, erodible cropland, pastured hillsides, and sensitive groundwater areas. Since

the program began in 1986, landowners have enrolled about 2,400 easements, covering 83,000 acres.

The RIM Reserve Program has helped to leverage significant outside dollars for conservation in

Minnesota. Under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), the federal government

will provide Minnesota landowners with up to $163 million to retire land in the Minnesota River valley.

This money must be matched by $70 million in state funding. By combining a federal Conservation

Reserve Program contract with a RIM Reserve easement, this funding will retire approximately 100,000

acres and more than double the amount of acreage currently enrolled in RIM Reserve.

The RIM Reserve/Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) partnership is another state/federal/local

partnership that provides Minnesota with an opportunity to leverage federal dollars to increase conservation easement enrollment. Under the partnership, drained wetlands are enrolled and restored by combining WRP’s 30-year easement option with a perpetual RIM Reserve easement. About 6,208 acres of RIM

Reserve/WRP easements have been enrolled since the program began in 1997, costing about $5 million

in federal dollars and $2.8 million in state dollars.

For more information on Minnesota’s RIM Reserve Program, see www.bwsr.state.mn.us/programs/

major/rim.html.
208 State Funding Programs

New Hampshire’s Water Supply Land Conservation Grant

Program

I

n spring 2000 the New Hampshire legislature created the Water Supply Land Conservation Grant

Program. Under the program, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES)

provides grants to municipal or nonprofit water suppliers for the purchase of land or conservation easements critical to the quality of their water. These water supply lands must be within the source water

protection areas for existing or planned public drinking water sources. DES has $1.5 million available for

grants during the first year of the program.

The state grants must be matched by 75 percent from local sources. These match sources can include donated land or easements that also lie within the source water protection area, public funds,

transaction expenses, or private funds. A low-interest loan fund is also available from DES to help communities finance some or all of the match.

For more information on New Hampshire’s Water Supply Land Conservation Grant Program, see

www.des.state.nh.us/dwspp/ws_landgrant.htm.

New Jersey’s Funding Programs

Over the past several years, the New Jersey legislature has appropriated $5.3 million to the state’sDepartment of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Department of Agriculture for technical

and financial assistance grants to farmers who develop and implement conservation plans that incorporate agricultural BMPs to control nonpoint source pollution. Direct state cost-share funding assistance is

pooled with federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program cost-share funds and made available to

farmers based on potential environmental benefit.

In June 1999 New Jersey’s governor signed the Garden State Preservation Trust Act, which will

enable the state to preserve 1 million acres of open space over the next 10 years (by 2010). In 1998 New

Jersey residents voted to amend the New Jersey constitution to provide a stable source of funding to

acquire and preserve open space, farmland, and historic sites around the state. The amendment dedicates

$98 million annually for 10 years to preservation efforts and authorizes the issuance of up to $1 billion in

revenue bonds. For more information on the Garden State Preservation Trust Act, see www.state.nj.us/

dep/greenacres/preservation.htm.

New Jersey’s DEP has received $5 million each fiscal year from State Corporate Business Tax receipts to implement watershed management and nonpoint source pollution control. Funds for nonpoint

source and watershed activities have been increased to include $600,000 for each of the 20 Watershed

Management Areas for a 4-year watershed planning process. For more information on New Jersey’s

Corporate Business Tax, see www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/financial.htm.
State Funding Programs 209

New Jersey’s DEP awarded $1.8 million in grant funds on April 17, 2001, for the development of

regional storm water management planning in four counties. Storm water plans to improve streams and

water quality will be developed for five priority watersheds: the Upper Maurice River in Gloucester

County; the Smithville Drainage in Atlantic County; part of the Rancocas watershed in Burlington

County; and Masons Creek and Little Creek, both tributaries to the Cooper River. Additional grants

totaling $740,000 are being awarded for storm water planning in the Shrewsbury and Cohansey watersheds. These funds are from the 1989 Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflow Bond Act.

New York’s Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act

New York’s 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act devoted $1.75 billion to protect and restore thestate’s environment. Of that amount, $790 million in funding is devoted to clean water projects

to help carry out existing management plans for major water resources. Funds are available for municipal

wastewater treatment improvement, pollution prevention, agricultural and nonagricultural nonpoint

source abatement and control, and aquatic habitat restoration. Significant support is available to acquire

open space that protects water resources, acquire public parklands, and protect farmland. Funding is also

available to help small businesses protect the environment, help small municipalities address flood control, and improve the safety of dams throughout New York.

The Bond Act also specifically devotes $355 million for safe drinking water projects. These funds

include $265 million for a revolving loan fund and $90 million for state assistance payments to economically distressed water systems upgrading their drinking water facilities.

For more information on New York’s Clean Water Bond Act, see www.dec.state.ny.us/website/

bondact/index.html.

North Carolina’s Clean Water Management Trust Fund

I

n 1996 North Carolina’s General Assembly established the Clean Water Management Trust Fund

(CWMTF) to help finance projects that specifically address water pollution problems and focus on

upgrading surface waters, eliminating pollution, and protecting and conserving unpolluted surface waters,

including urban drinking water supplies. Moneys from the CWMTF may be used to acquire land or easements for riparian buffers and watersheds; to restore wetlands, buffers, and watershed lands; to repair

failing wastewater treatment systems; and to improve storm water controls and management practices.

At the end of each fiscal year, 6.5 percent of the unreserved credit balance in North Carolina’s

General Fund (or a minimum of $30 million) will go into the CWMTF. In 2000 the Board of Trustees

approved 59 grants for a total of $49.8 million. The Board has approved 234 grants for a total of $211

million since 1997. CWMTF grants have leveraged at least $60 million in other private and public funds.
210 State Funding Programs

The CWMTF’s $40 million investment in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program will leverage

$221 million in U.S. Department of Agriculture funds and $10 million in other funds over the next

6 years. The 2000 session of the General Assembly committed to appropriate $40 million to CWMTF in

FY 2001–2002, $70 million in FY 2002–2003, and $100 million in FY 2003–2004 and subsequent years.

The CWMTF has helped to protect 1,560 miles of riparian buffers and preserve 134,673 acres of

land. The CWMTF has assisted 60 local governments with wastewater improvements, funded 45 restoration projects, and funded 16 storm water projects.

For more information on North Carolina’s Clean Water Management Trust Fund, see www.cwmtf.net.

Clean Ohio Fund

On November 7, 2000, Ohio voters passed Issue 1, a $400 million statewide ballot initiative that willhelp support brownfields restoration, farmland preservation, stream and watershed restoration

and protection, open space conservation, and outdoor recreation.

In January 2001 Ohio’s governor released the Clean Ohio Fund Implementation White Paper, detailing his vision regarding the administration of the fund. The administration proposes to set aside $25

million for a pilot program to purchase agricultural easements on valuable agricultural land. A total of

$50 million will be available over the program’s initial 4 years to protect high-quality streams and restore

impaired water resources through protection of habitat along Ohio streams. Eligible projects will include

the purchase of easements or fee simple interest in land to protect and restore streams and forested

riparian corridors. Funding will also support projects that protect or restore natural stream channel functions, floodplains, and riparian corridors (for example, removal of dams that are no longer needed, provisions for fish passage, protection and restoration of natural flow regimes, or restoration of floodplains

and associated wetlands).

In addition, the Clean Ohio Fund will set aside $175 million for brownfields restoration, $100 million for greenspaces, and $25 million each for developing recreational trails and cleaning up threats to

public health.

For more information on the Clean Ohio Fund, see www.dnr.state.oh.us/cleanohiofund.

Oregon’s Watershed Restoration Grants

Oregon’s Watershed Enhancement Board administers Watershed Restoration Grants for numerousactivities, including watershed restoration and enhancement, watershed assessment and monitoring, watershed education and outreach, land and water acquisition, and watershed council support.

Grants are used to fund on-the-ground watershed management projects such as planting along
State Funding Programs 211

streambanks to slow erosion, developing off-stream livestock watering facilities or fencing stream areas

to restore riparian function, controlling upland vegetation to encourage the growth of native grasses,

reseeding old logging roads, restoring or enhancing natural wetlands, improving fish habitat, removing or

replacing ineffective culverts, and purchasing conservation easements or leasing water rights.

The funds for these grants come from a voter-approved ballot measure that designates 7.5 percent

of lottery proceeds for watershed restoration and protection. In January 2001 alone, the Watershed

Enhancement Board awarded nearly $10 million in watershed improvement grants to watershed action

groups around the state.

For more information on Oregon’s Watershed Restoration Grants, see www.oweb.state.or.us.

Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener Program

I

n December 1999 the governor signed Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener program into law, providing

nearly $650 million over 5 years to address the state’s most pressing environmental challenges. Funds

provided by Growing Greener will be split among four state agencies on an annual basis: Department of

Conservation and Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture, and Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority. These agencies will direct Growing

Greener funding to protect open space, clean up abandoned mines, restore watersheds, and provide new

and upgraded water and sewer systems, among other projects.

The first year of Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener grant program has been very successful. Growing

Greener grants have led to 55 watershed assessment and protection plans and 85 restoration/demonstration projects being implemented. Projects facilitating 58 environmental education projects and the organization of 21 watershed groups have also been set in motion.

With the help of Growing Greener funds, 3,603 acres of wetlands and 117 miles of riparian buffers

are being restored. In addition, 279 miles of streams affected by acid mine drainage are being cleaned up,

nearly 800 acres of abandoned mine lands are being reclaimed, and 43 miles of stream improvement

structures are being built. Growing Greener has also enabled Pennsylvania to eliminate its backlog of

mine reclamation and oil and gas well plugging projects. As a result, an additional 612 acres of abandoned mine lands are being reclaimed and more than 134 abandoned oil and gas wells are being plugged.

Grant recipients took the initiative to seek out other sources of funding to build on their Growing

Greener grants. Nearly $45 million in matching funds supplemented the Commonwealth’s investment.

Match money was received in the form of cash, volunteer time, or donations of equipment or materials.

For more information on Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener program, see www.dep.state.pa.us/growgreen.
212 State Funding Programs

Vermont’s Funding Programs

Agricultural BMP cost-share program

In 1996 the Vermont legislature created a program that provides financial assistance to Vermont farmers in

support of voluntary implementation of BMPs on farms. This program has provided a unique opportunity to combine state funds with federal USDA funds on many projects, thereby reducing the farmer’s

share of project costs to as little as 15 percent. Since the program’s inception, the legislature has gradually increased annual funding levels from $250,000 to the current $1.2 million. In total, $3.9 million has

now been earmarked for this program, with $2.7 million committed to build 737 BMP projects on 388

farms. This year’s fiscal year 2001 allocation of $1.2 million is currently being committed to farm

projects. The most common BMPs funded through the program to date have been systems to store

manure, manage barnyard runoff, and treat milkhouse effluent. Using a phosphorus crediting procedure

for each BMP, the state estimates that the practices funded thus far will reduce annual phosphorus loading to watercourses by about 31,900 pounds. The loading estimates provide one means for the state to

track progress toward phosphorus reduction goals in key water bodies such as Lake Champlain.

The Vermont Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets administers the program in close coordination with USDA cost-share programs. BMP systems eligible for state cost-share dollars must meet

design standards and specifications established by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service.

A system must be operated and maintained for its design life (typically at least 10 years) according to a

plan that includes strict provisions for nutrient management and system upkeep.

Contact information: Phil Benedict (phil@agr.state.vt.us) or Jeff Cook (cookie@agr.state.vt.us) at the Vermont Department of

Agriculture, Food and Markets, 802-828-2431.

Vermont Better Backroads Program

The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation initiated a small grants program for correcting erosion and drainage problems along the state’s backroads in 1997 using a small amount (about

$20,000) of section 319 funding. Approximately 81 percent of Vermont’s road miles are maintained by

municipalities, and most of these roads are gravel roads. The goal of Vermont’s Better Backroads Program is to promote the use of erosion control and maintenance techniques that save money while protecting and enhancing Vermont’s lakes and streams. The program has been so successful that the Vermont General Assembly voted to more than triple its size in 1999 by adding $48,000 in state appropriations. Grants are awarded to towns and local organizations for erosion control measures not already

required by town, state, or federal regulations. The 20 projects funded this year range from the installation of rock-lined ditches and diversion berms to culvert repairs and streambank stabilization. A portion

of the funds is made available for road inventories, problem prioritizing, and capital budget planning to

incorporate erosion control into ongoing town road maintenance.

Contact information: Susan Warren, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 802-241-3794, susan.warren@anrmail.anr.state.vt.us.
State Funding Programs 213

Vermont Watershed Fund

The Vermont Watershed Fund was established with funds from the sale of a special conservation license

plate, authorized by the state legislature in 1996. The plates first became available in April 1997, and more

than 9,000 were sold by fall 1999. Revenues for projects supported by the fund are raised by an additional $20 per year motor vehicle registration fee for each plate. The proceeds from plate sales are divided between the Vermont Watershed Management Fund and the Nongame Wildlife Fund.

The Watershed Fund, administered by Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources, supports watershed

projects that protect, restore, or enhance Vermont’s watershed resources. The funds are granted to community-based watershed organizations through the Vermont Watershed Grants Program. A wide range

of projects are eligible for funding, including monitoring, outreach, land acquisition, recreational enhancement, and pollution prevention. A wide range of projects were funded in 1998 and 1999, including

mine remediation, lake watershed surveys, river stabilization, and integrated crop management in a small

watershed. Funds available for the watershed grants program have grown steadily from $16,000 in 1998

to $45,000 in 2000. Although modest in size, the program already has produced many successful results.

It fills a critical gap in statewide funding sources for watershed-based projects.

Contact information: Susan Warren, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 802-241-3794, susan.warren@anrmail.anr.state.vt.us.

Virginia’s Water Quality Improvement Act

The purpose of the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act of 1997 is to restore and improve thequality of state waters and protect them from impairment and destruction for the benefit of current

and future citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Because this responsibility is shared among state and

local governments and individuals, the Water Quality Improvement Fund (WQIF) was created.

The purpose of the fund is to provide water quality improvement grants to local governments, Soil and

Water Conservation Districts, and individuals for point and nonpoint source pollution prevention, reduction, and control programs. A primary objective of the WQIF is to fund grants that will reduce the flow of

excess nitrogen and phosphorus into the Chesapeake Bay through the implementation of Tributary Strategies prepared in accordance with the multistate/EPA/DC Chesapeake Bay Program and with state law.

Fund appropriations for fiscal year 1998 included $15 million (with $10 million for point sources

and $5 million for nonpoint sources), and appropriations for 1999–2000 included more than $50 million

(including $27 million for nonpoint sources). Most of the grants from the fund will be provided as

matching funds, usually on a 50/50 cost-share basis.

For more information on Virginia’s Water Quality Improvement Act, see www.dcr.state.va.us/sw/

wqia.htm.
214 State Funding Programs

Washington’s Water Quality Funding Programs

Washington Department of Ecology’s Water Quality Program administers three major fundingprograms (managed as one) that provide low-interest loans and grants for projects that protect

and improve water quality. The three programs that share guidelines, application, and funding cycles are

(1) the Centennial Clean Water Fund, which provides low-interest loans and grants for wastewater treatment facilities and fund-related activities to reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution; (2) the State

Revolving Fund (SRF), which provides low-interest loans for wastewater treatment facilities and related

activities, or to reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution; and (3) the section 319 grants program.

During fiscal year 2001, 82 projects will receive funding in the form of grants and loans totaling

$93.7 million. Projects will address water quality improvement and protection initiatives, including wastewater collection, treatment, reuse, and reclamation; salmon habitat and riparian corridor improvements;

sediment control; agricultural BMPs; watershed action plans; wellhead protection; storm water treatment;

environmental education; and water quality monitoring.

Each year Washington reserves 20 percent of its lendable funds (through the SRF and Centennial

Clean Water Fund programs) for nonpoint source and estuary projects. In state fiscal year 2001, that

20 percent (more than $12 million) was fully committed to these types of projects.

For more information on Washington’s water quality funding programs, see www.ecy.wa.gov/

programs/wq/funding.

Wisconsin’s Grant Programs for Runoff Management

Wisconsin’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program provides grants averaging$20 million per year in both urban and rural watersheds selected for priority watershed

projects. In 1997 and 1998 the Wisconsin legislature created two new grant programs to address the

effects of polluted runoff. The Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) Grant Program provides up to

$150,000 to rural and urban governmental units to control polluted runoff from urban and rural sites.

The Urban Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Grant Program focuses on financial assistance for projects

in urban areas, providing up to 70 percent of technical assistance.

For more information on Wisconsin’s grant programs for polluted runoff management, see

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/nps/npsprogram.html.
State Funding Programs 215

State Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs

State Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs (CREP) address important local conservationconcerns by combining USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) with state technical and

funding assistance. CRP is administered by the USDA’s Farm Service Agency, which protects fragile

farmland by assisting owners and operators in conserving and improving soil, water, and wildlife resources. This is done by converting highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive acreage normally

devoted to the production of agricultural commodities to a long-term approved cover. Participants enroll

in contracts for 10 to 15 years and, in some cases, easements, in exchange for annual rental payments and

cost-share assistance for installing certain conservation practices.

At least 14 states have approved CREP agreements in place, and at least an additional 8 states have

CREP proposals under review. Many states are contributing significant amounts of funding to CREP. For

example, Oregon provides $50 million (along with $200 million from USDA); North Carolina,

$54 million (with $221 million from USDA); and Pennsylvania, $77 million (with $137 million from USDA).

States are also enrolling large tracts of land in the CREP. For example, Illinois’s $250 million CREP

may have up to 232,000 acres continuously enrolled in the CRP through 2002. Goals of the program

include reducing total sediment loading to the Illinois River by 20 percent; reducing phosphorus and

nitrogen loading to the Illinois River by 10 percent; increasing populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and

state and federally listed species by 15 percent within the project area; and increasing native fish and

mussel stocks by 10 percent in the lower reaches of the Illinois River.

For more information on State Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs, see

www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crep/crepstates.htm.

Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs

Under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, EPA provides grants or “seedmoney” to all 50 states and Puerto Rico to capitalize state loan funds. The states, in turn, make

loans to communities, individuals, and others for high-priority water quality activities. As money is paid

back into the revolving fund, new loans are made to other recipients that need help in maintaining the

quality of their water. Currently, the program has more than $27 billion in assets.

The CWSRF program allows states the flexibility to provide funding for projects that will address

their highest-priority needs. Although the CWSRF has traditionally been used to build or improve wastewater treatment plants, eligible nonpoint source projects include virtually any activity that a state has

identified in its nonpoint source management plan. Loans can be used for control of agricultural runoff,

conservation tillage and other projects to address soil erosion, development of streambank buffer zones,

and wetland protection and restoration. Twenty-eight states have funded more than $1 billion of such

nonpoint source and estuary projects through 2000.

For more information on the CWSRF program, see www.epa.gov/owm/cwsrf.htm.
216 State Funding Programs
Tribal Section 319 Projects 217

Tribal Section 319 Projects

In 1987 Congress added sections 319 and 518 to the Clean Water Act to enable states, territories, and

tribes to address the problems caused by nonpoint source pollution. Section 319 established baseline

requirements for state and territorial nonpoint source management programs and authorized national

funding to support implementation of approved management programs. Section 518 authorized EPA to

treat federally recognized Indian tribes in the same manner as states and to grant up to one-third of

1 percent of national 319 grant funds to tribes.

In FY 2000 and FY 2001, Congress authorized EPA to award grants to Indian tribes under

section 319 in an amount that exceeds the statutory cap, recognizing that Indian tribes need and deserve

increased financial support to implement their nonpoint source programs. As a result, in FY 2000 and

FY 2001, $2.5 million and $6 million (respectively) were made available to tribes—the first time that

total national 319 grants to tribes had exceeded $1 million. EPA’s long-term goal is for the cap on

tribal nonpoint source grants to be permanently eliminated.

EPA annually awards section 319 grants to tribes that submit approved nonpoint source assessments

and management plans. Each grant awarded under section 319 requires a 40 percent nonfederal match. If

a tribe demonstrates a special financial need, however, EPA may (and frequently does) approve a 10 percent

nonfederal match. As of September 2001 more than 70 tribes (representing more than 70 percent of

Indian Country) have EPA-approved nonpoint source assessments and management programs.

Despite very limited resources, a number of tribes have been able to implement some good-quality projects

designed to achieve water quality improvements on tribal lands. Several examples of these projects are

highlighted in this special feature section.

Restoring Watersheds by Decommissioning Forest Roads:

Karuk Tribe and Forest Service Form Successful Partnership

For years the tribal lands of the Karuk Tribe of California, located in Northern California near theOregon state line, have been honeycombed with roads for mining (gold, gravel, and quartz) and

timber harvesting. Today, however, the watersheds are in imminent danger of environmental crisis because of sedimentation resulting from those past activities, threatening the habitat of coho and chinook

salmon and steelhead trout. A 72 percent decline in timber harvesting between 1989 and 1997 has also

devastated the region’s economy. Many tribal members who once worked for logging or mining operations are now unemployed.

Today, 95 percent of tribal ancestral lands are located in the Klamath and Six Rivers National Forests. In 1994 a government-to-government protocol agreement emerged from this overlap to help pro-
218 Tribal Section 319 Projects

tect and restore the region. The Steinacher Road, once serving as the region’s main corridor, was soon

identified as the largest contributor of sediment to Steinacher and Wooley Creeks, which eventually lead

to the Lower Salmon River. It is estimated that since the road’s construction in 1971, more than 10,600

cubic yards of sediment has entered stream channels from cutbanks and the road surface; annual delivery

is more than three times background levels.

Securing funding

In 1998 the Karuk Tribe entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Klamath National Forest calling for the sharing of resources, funding, and staff to help with decommissioning

Steinacher Road. The Karuk Tribe secured 319 funding to help provide “storm-proofing” and prescription planning until significant restoration funds could be secured for the remainder of the decommissioning. Over the next 2 years, the Karuk Tribe and the Northern California Indian Development Council secured more than $1 million of funding from seven different funding sources to help with the

project. In January 2000 an MOU was signed between the Karuk Tribe and the Six Rivers National Forest to continue completion of the Steinacher Road project as funding becomes available. Organizers of

the project estimate that it will cost $1.9 million and take one project team 3 years to complete.

Building tribal capability

With assistance from the Northern California Indian Development Council, the Karuk Tribe initiated a

Comprehensive Watershed Restoration Training and Implementation Program for tribal members and

staff. The goal is to prepare the members of a Tribal Restoration Division for careers as watershed restoration specialists while supplying an on-the-job apprenticeship completing critical restoration work on

projects available throughout the tribe’s ancestral territory.

Since the Tribal Restoration Division was established, at least 16 tribe members have undergone training

in heavy equipment application, prescription planning and surveying, and supervision of project sites. The

new watershed restoration specialists have also removed about 94,800 cubic yards of sediment to stable locations and reestablished the natural drainage for five major streams that cross the abandoned Steinacher Road.

Improved water quality and fisheries are seen as a significant component of rebuilding the economy

of the region. Watershed restoration represents an opportunity for long-term, stable employment based

on non-resource-extraction ecosystem management and a stable, fully functioning ecosystem. Building

the tribe’s capability to play an appropriate role in ecosystem management is the only means by which

ecosystem restoration, cultural survival, and community prosperity will be achieved.

Looking ahead

Over the long term, more than 2,000 miles of road throughout the Karuk’s ancestral territory will need

decommissioning or significant upgrading and remediation of mining impacts. These projects will take

12 project teams 25 to 30 years to complete. At a minimum, continuing this program requires $3 million
Tribal Section 319 Projects 219

per year above the current forest watershed budget for planning, inspection, administration, and logistical support. If funding can be secured, the partnership created between the Karuk Tribe and the Forest

Service will continue to serve as a model for a systematic approach to long-term salmon recovery efforts

on the Klamath River.

Winchester Lake Watershed Project: Local Partners Join

in Implementing TMDL Plan

Winchester Lake is located within the exterior boundaries of the Nez Perce Reservation, about30 miles southeast of Lewiston, Idaho. Originally, the lake served as a mill pond from 1910 to

1963. The 100-acre body of water is now the central focus of a 218-acre State Park that surrounds the lake.

In the late 1980s, local residents and visitors increasingly complained about the lake’s nuisance algae

blooms and poor water clarity. In 1990, through EPA’s Clean Lakes Program, high levels of nutrients and

low levels of dissolved oxygen were identified as adversely affecting water quality in the lake. In 1996

Idaho’s 303(d) list of impaired waters identified Winchester Lake as not meeting state water quality standards, requiring the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

A local Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) was formed in 1998 to develop recommendations for

improvements that they wanted to see installed in the area. The WAG members are local residents from

all sectors, including stakeholders from the agriculture and grazing communities, forestry, the Nez Perce

Tribe, the Road District, city government, and recreation. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

was developed between the state of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, and EPA with the intent to work collectively

on the development of the TMDL. In February 1999 the TMDL was completed and approved, representing the success of the collaborative approach of the many agencies and the WAG.

Following the completion of the TMDL, the Nez Perce Tribe received 319 funding to help implement water quality projects in the watershed, as an integral piece of the TMDL’s phased implementation

plan. Funds were used to restore two forest road segments noted as high sediment producers in the

TMDL. Gates for seasonal closure were also installed to restrict travel during the wet season.

Using 319 funds, the tribe collaborated with private landowners along the stream corridor to enhance riparian shading and stabilize streambanks. In spring 2000, volunteers and personnel from Nez

Perce Tribe Water Resources, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Soil Conservation

Commission planted 150 trees and shrubs. A larger planting effort for 2,500 shrubs was planned for the

remainder of the corridor.

These ongoing improvements are possible because of the collaborative efforts among the many Nez

Perce tribal departments, state and federal agencies, private landowners, and members of the watershed

group. Restoration efforts in this watershed will continue with additional 319 funding for agricultural

practices, livestock best management practices, riparian plantings, culvert replacements for fish passage

and maintenance, and road rehabilitation.
220 Tribal Section 319 Projects

Water Quality Best Management Practices Plan: Choctaw

Tribe Addresses Soil Erosion

The Mississippi Choctaw trust lands consist of eight individual communities in eight counties ofeast-central Mississippi and encompass more than 24,000 acres. Land ownership in these eight

communities is like a checkerboard, adjoined and fragmented by non-Indian lands. The tribe is currently

acquiring additional land parcels as they become available to consolidate the Choctaw ownership pattern

to facilitate access and management capabilities and the delivery of services to its members. The

Choctaw population is more than 8,100. Siltation resulting from various silviculture, construction, and

resource extraction activities has been identified as the primary nonpoint source pollutant affecting water

quality on the Choctaw lands. Soil losses to erosion in some upland (hilly) areas might be as high as 40 to

50 tons per acre per year. In some places the land is devoid of adequate tree, brush, or grass cover; in

others, skid trails, fire lanes, and roads have created gullies that cause annual soil losses in excess of 100

tons per acre per year.

To address these problems, the Choctaw Tribe has developed a Water Quality Best Management

Practices Plan for tribal lands. A Natural Resource Conservation Committee will oversee the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to address erosion and siltation problems. Various BMPs will

be used, including the use of both vegetative and structural measures during construction in residential

areas to control erosion and sedimentation.

The plan also calls for the development and passing of tribal ordinances adopting erosion and sediment controls for disturbed areas and enforcement of selected BMPs. There are plans to hold meetings

with stakeholders to discuss and implement the plan.

Monitoring activities will be conducted to identify discharge points, drainage patterns, direction of

flow, water quality at surface water bodies affected by discharges, locations of significant materials exposed

to storm water, and structural measures to control erosion and siltation. The data will also indicate the

effect that recent changes in construction management activities have on water quality in the watershed.

Contact Information: Bernadette Hudnell, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, P.O. Box 6013, Choctaw Branch, Philadelphia, MS

39350, 601-656-5251
Tribal Section 319 Projects 221

Restoring Little Porcupine Creek: Alternative Water

Sources and Grazing Rotation Help to Restore Stream

Several years ago Little Porcupine Creek was listed as the most impaired water body on the Fort PeckIndian Reservation in northeastern Montana. The area was broken into two pastures, and the

stream was being used as the only source of water. It was heavily used by cattle, which congregated along

this source of water and shade.

In 1998 the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation received 319 funding to

embark on a 13,000-acre restoration effort in the watershed. The tribes also collaborated with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to obtain technical assistance, as well as financial support

through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).

Part of the project focused on helping vegetation to recover through increased fencing to promote

better rotation of cattle grazing. Where only 2 pastures had previously been, extensive fencing broke the

area into 17 pastures, allowing the tribal ranch manager to use a deferred rotation grazing system to move

cattle through each pasture twice a year.

NRCS engineers helped to design new pipeline routes to provide alternative sources of drinking

water for the cattle to decrease the cattle’s visits (and ensuing damage) to the stream. Indian contractors

then installed more than 14 miles of water pipeline, allowing access to watering tanks in each pasture.

The project was recently completed, and monitoring will provide information on its effects within a

year. Studies of the vegetative growth in the project area will be conducted, as well as continued

macroinvertebrate monitoring and studies of the physical characteristics of the stream itself.

Contact information: Debi Madison, Environmental Director, Fort Peck Tribes, 406-768-5155 (ext. 399)

Streambank Restoration at Bradley and Standingdeer Campgrounds:

An Innovative Solution Solves a Common Problem

The Cherokee Indian Reservation in the southern Appalachian Mountains of western North Carolinacomprises some 56,000 acres. The topography of much of the reservation land consists of very

steep slopes and narrow valleys. In this area, soils are thin and generally highly erodible. Siltation is the

primary cause of impairment of tribal waters. Major sources of siltation have resulted from past logging

practices, gravel mining, road construction, housing construction, landfill, and other development activities. The rock/gravel mined area of Soco Creek has been designated a priority area for streambank restoration and reduction of nonpoint source pollution.

Sites on Soco Creek and the Oconaluftee River have undergone streambank restoration by stabilization techniques. Two sites where streambank restorations have been completed are Bradley Campground
222 Tribal Section 319 Projects

and Standingdeer Campground. At these sites, erosion from overland flow had resulted from land disturbance due to the high level of foot traffic by campers. A large part of the problem was campers creating

footpaths and removing riparian vegetation on streambanks, leaving the banks vulnerable to erosion

during storm events.

The objective of the project was to reduce erosion from overland flow and from streambank failure

as the streams undercut their banks at both Bradley and Standingdeer Campgrounds. Components of the

project were designed to restrict campers’ access down erodible streambanks and redirect their access

down nonerodible steps.

An innovative solution

To reduce erosion, native riparian trees and shrubs were planted, along with grass seeding, and coconut

erosion control fabric was installed to hold the soil in place until the vegetation was established. In addition to the benefits of holding soil in place, the vegetation will eventually grow into a barrier that restricts

campers’ movement down the streambanks. Using a method developed by Dave Rosgen of Wildland

Hydrology (Pagosa Springs, Colorado), access to the stream was provided by making a modification to

rock vanes. Without compromising the hydraulic design of the rock vanes, they were extended approximately 3 feet above their normal design elevation to the top of the streambank, which is the level of the

rest of the campground. The purpose of extending the vanes was to make solid rock (boulder) stair steps

that serve as access points for campers to enter the stream corridor.

In this project, revegetation and rock vane construction were successfully employed for streambank

restoration. Revegetation solved the erosion problem from overland storm flow, while construction of

rock vanes addressed undercutting of the streambanks. The constructed vanes slow floodwater velocities

near the banks and deflect high-velocity water toward the channel center to replicate conditions in

healthy natural channels.

Contact Information: Dannie Childers, Environmental Planner, Tribal Environmental Office, P.O. Box 455, Cherokee, NC 28719,

828-497-3814
Glossary G-1

Acid mine drainage—Mine leachate, or drainage, that contains free acidic sulfates

(usually, ferrous acid). Sulfide minerals generally break down in the presence of

oxygen and water.

Animal feeding operations (AFOs) Animal feeding operations (AFOs)—Facilities where animals have been, are, or

will be stabled or confined for a total of 45 or more days in any 12-month period

and crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in

the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility.

Aquifer—A groundwater supply that is able to release water in quantities sufficient

to supply reasonable amounts to wells.

Best management practice (BMP) Best management practice (BMP)—A practice or combination of practices that are

determined to control point and nonpoint pollutants at levels compatible with

environmental quality goals.

Channelization and channel modification—Engineering activities or techniques

undertaken to change stream and river channels for certain reasons, including

flood control, navigation, and drainage improvement. These activities include

straightening, widening, deepening, relocating, and clearing or snagging

operations that generally result in more uniform channel cross sections.

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)—Facilities that (1) confine

more than 1,000 animal units or (2) confine 301 to 1,000 animal units and

discharge pollutants into waters of the United States.

Constructed wetland—An engineered system designed to simulate natural

wetlands to exploit the water purification functional value for human use and

benefits. Constructed wetlands consist of former upland environments that have

been modified to create poorly drained soils and wetland flora and fauna for the

primary purpose of removing contaminants or pollutants from wastewater runoff.

Dissolved oxygen—The concentration of free molecular oxygen in the water

column. Although oxygen makes up about 90 percent of water, its concentration in

water is higher near the surface and declines to almost zero at the lowest depths.

An absence of dissolved oxygen causes fish kills and the condition known as

hypoxia, or dead water.

Effluent—Solid, liquid, or gaseous wastes that enter the environment as a byproduct of human activities.

Erosion—Wearing away of the land surface by running water, glaciers, wind, and

waves.

Estuary—The part of the river that is affected by tides; the region near a river’s

mouth in which the fresh water in the river mixes with the salt water of the sea.

Eutrophication—The alteration of lake ecology through excessive nutrient input,

characterized by excessive growth of aquatic plants and algae and low levels of

dissolved oxygen.

Fecal coliform bacteria—Bacteria normally found in the intestinal tracts of warmblooded animals. These bacteria are normally harmless to humans but are used as

indicators of the presence of sewage that might contain other bacteria and viruses.

Feedlots—See Animal feeding operations and Concentrated animal feeding

operations.

Glossary
G-2 Glossary

Glossary (cont.)

Floodplains—Land areas adjacent to rivers and streams that are subject to

recurring flooding.

Groundwater—Underground water supplies stored in aquifers; the source of

groundwater is rain, which soaks into the ground and flows down until it is

collected at a point where the ground is not permeable.

Habitat Habitat—The place where a biological species naturally lives or grows.

Heavy metals—Elements with a large atomic number, including copper, cadmium,

lead, selenium, arsenic, mercury, and chromium. These elements accumulate in the

tissues of organisms that come into contact with them (especially in aquatic

settings) and are passed through the food chain. Heavy metals can be harmful or

fatal in high concentrations.

Hydrocarbons—Organic compounds containing hydrogen and carbon atoms that

are found in petroleum products. These compounds have adverse affects on

human and animal health and might be linked to some forms of cancer.

Impaired waters—Lakes, streams, or rivers where pollutant concentrations exceed

those set by the water quality standards for the waterways’ designated uses.

Integrated pest management (IPM) Integrated pest management (IPM)—A pest population management system that

uses cultural practices to anticipate and prevent pests from reaching damaging

levels. IPM uses all suitable tactics, including natural enemies, pest-resistant plants,

cultural management, and pesticides, leading to economically sound and

environmentally safe agriculture.

Invasive species—A species that does not naturally inhabit an area and whose

introduction is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or adversely affect

human health.

Karst—A type of topography characterized by closed depressions, sinkholes,

underground caverns, and solution channels.

Leachate—Liquid that has percolated through a soil and contains substances in

solution or suspension.

Leaching basins—A method of capturing and treating urban runoff from

roadways. These basins are designed to catch runoff water and remove pollutants

such as hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and fecal coliform bacteria.

Load—The quantity of material that enters a water body over a given time interval.

No-till farming—Farming practices that reduce the need for tilling and the number

of times soil is tilled each year. By reducing the frequency of tilling, soil is left

undisturbed, resulting in less sediment runoff into nearby waterways.

Nonpoint source pollution—Water pollution that comes from many diffuse sources

rather than from a specific point, such as an outfall pipe; often the unintended

result of human activities.

Nutrients—Elements, or compounds, essential as raw materials for organism

growth and development, such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus.

On-site sewage treatment systems—Means of treating human or animal wastes

for properties that are not connected to a central sewage treatment system. On-site

systems, or septic systems, break down wastewater and disperse it into the ground

to be recycled.
Glossary G-3

Organic enrichment ganic enrichment—Amounts of organic material that exceed a waterway’s

capacity to maintain high levels of dissolved oxygen. Decaying organic material,

such as aquatic plants or organic material in nonpoint runoff wastewater, depletes

oxygen levels in a waterway and sometimes results in impairment or death in

aquatic life.

Pathogens—Disease-causing agents, including viruses, microorganisms, and

bacteria.

Point source pollution—Water pollution that comes from a specific, definable

source.

Pollutant Pollutant—Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage,

sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive

materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock sand, cellar dirt, and

industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water (Section 502(6)

of the Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law

100-4).

Retrofitting—The creation or modification of an urban runoff management system

in a previously developed area. Such systems include wet ponds, infiltration

systems, wetland plantings, streambank stabilization, and other best management

practices for improving water quality and creating aquatic habitat.

Riparian areas—Vegetated ecosystems along a water body through which energy,

materials, and water pass. Riparian areas characteristically have a high water table

and are subject to periodic flooding and influence from the adjacent water body.

Runoff—The part of precipitation, snowmelt, or irrigation water that runs off the

land into streams or other surface water. It can carry pollutants from the air and

land into the receiving waters.

Section 303(d) Section 303(d)—The section of the Clean Water Act that requires states to identify

impaired waters and prepare the Total Maximum Daily Load required to ensure

protection of the impaired waters.

Sediment Sediment—Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being

transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by air, water, gravity, or ice.

Sedimentation—The process or act of depositing sediment.

Sewage lagoon—A reservoir or pond built to contain water and animal wastes

until they can be decomposed by aerobic or anaerobic action.

Storm water—Water generated by rainfall.

Surface water—All water whose surface is exposed to the atmosphere.

Suspended sediment Suspended sediment—The very fine soil particles that remain in suspension in

water for a considerable period of time.

Tailings—Rock residue from the mining process.

Glossary (cont.)
G-4 Glossary

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program—This program, established by

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, provides for the protection of waters in areas

where pollution control is not stringent enough to achieve water quality standards.

The program authorizes states to assess water quality and to allocate the total

maximum allowable daily load(s) of pollutant discharges to those waters, regardless

of the pollutant’s source. Future TMDLs are expected to emphasize wet-weather

storm water discharges and nonpoint source pollution problems.

Turbidity—A cloudy condition in water due to suspended sediment or organic

matter.

Water quality—A term that reflects the condition of water that has been affected

by natural processes and human activities; good water quality may mean that the

water meets its designated uses; that is, it is fishable and swimmable.

Watershed—A drainage area or basin in which all land and water areas drain of

flow toward a central collector such as a stream, river, or lake at a lower elevation.

Wetlands—Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater

at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do

support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil

conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs.

Glossary (cont.)
Appendix A-1

Alabama

Alabama

Alaska

Alaska

American Samoa

Arizona

Arizona

Arkansas

Appendix

Success Story Index and Sources

Flint Creek Watershed

Project: Multiagency

Effort Results in Water

Quality Improvements

Tuscumbia-Fort Payne

Aquifer Protection

Program: Multiagency,

Cooperative Approach

Protects Aquifer

Restoration Work on the

Kenai: Section 319 Funds

Are Key to Youth

Restoration Corps’ Success

Road and Stream

Crossing Project in

Tongass National Forest:

New Data Help Identify

Needed Fish Habitat

Restoration

Nu’uuli Pala Lagoon

Restoration Project:

Efforts Spread to Other

Island Villages

Restoration in Nutrioso

Creek: Successful Results

Beginning to Show

Sediment Reduction at

Hackberry Ranch:

Reduction of 4 Tons Per

Acre Realized

Buffalo National River

Watershed Partnerships:

Partners Improve Swine

Waste Management

Submitted by Norm Blakely, Alabama Department

of Environmental Management.

Information for this success story was gleaned from

“A Multi-Agency Cooperative Approach to Aquifer

Protection: Program Completion,” by Enid Probst,

Ph.D., Alabama Department of Environmental

Management. Submitted by Norm Blakey, Alabama

Department of Environmental Management.

Submitted by Kent Patrick-Riley, Alaska Department

of Environmental Conservation.

Information for this success story was gleaned from

Tongass Road Condition Survey Report (Technical

Report No. 00-7) by Linda Shea Flanders and Jim

Cariello, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,

Habitat and Restoration Division, June 2000.

Submitted by Kent Patrick-Riley, Alaska Department

of Environmental Conservation.

Submitted by Carl Goldstein, EPA Region 9.

Information for this success story was gleaned from

Nutrioso Creek Turbidity TMDL, Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality (July 2000),

and James Crosswhite, EC Bar Ranch web site at

www.ecbarranch.com. Submitted by Ephraim

Leon-Guerrero, EPA Region 9.

Submitted by Kris Randall, Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality.

Submitted by Sandi Formica, Arkansas Department

of Environmental Quality. Project summary authors

also include John Giese, Tim Kresse, Tony Morris,

Matt Van Eps, and McRee Anderson of ADEQ and

Dr. Tommy Daniel of the University of Arkansas.

State Success Story Source Page

7

10

8

11

12

13

16

17
A-2 Appendix

Appendix (cont.)

Arkansas

California

California

Colorado

Colorado

Connecticut

Connecticut

Delaware

District of

Columbia

District of

Columbia

A Community Approach

to Managing Manure in

the Buffalo River

Watershed: Local

Watershed Assistance

Program Helps Dairy

Farmers

Grassland Bypass Project:

Economic Incentives

Program Helps to

Improve Water Quality

Turning History Around:

Stream Restoration

Reclaims a Meadow While

Helping to Control Floods

Mining Remediation in

the Chalk Creek

Watershed: Project

Demonstrates Exciting

Possibilities

Rio Blanco Restoration:

Adopted Rocks and

Homemade Jelly Help

Fund Demonstration

Project

Center Springs Pond

Restoration Project:

Skaters and Fish Return to

Pond

Lake Waramaug

Watershed Agricultural

Waste Management

System: One Farm Can

Make a Difference

Partners Upgrade Septic

Systems in Coverdale

Crossroads: Quality of Life

Improved for Residents

Marsh Restoration and

Island Enhancement

Projects at Kingman Lake:

Tidal Wetland Habitats

Re-created

The Watts Branch Initiative: Community Involvement Key to Success

Submitted by Sandi Formica, Arkansas Department

of Environmental Quality. Information for this

success story was gleaned from Proceedings of

Dairy Manure Systems, Equipment and Technology:

A Conference for Producers and Their Advisors, by

Sandi J. Formica, McRee Anderson, Matthew Van

Eps, Tony Morris, and Puneet Srivastava; Rochester,

New York, March 20–22, 2001.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Grassland Bypass “Project Description and

Update.” Submitted by Katherine Domeny,

California Environmental Protection Agency, and

Joe McGahan, Drainage Coordinator for the

Grassland Area Farmers.

Submitted by Katherine Domeny, California State

Water Resources Control Board.

Submitted by Laurie Fisher, Colorado Department

of Public Health and Environment.

Submitted by Laurie Fisher, Colorado Department

of Public Health and Environment.

Submitted by Mel Cote, EPA Region 1.

Submitted by Mel Cote, EPA Region 1.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Delaware’s Nonpoint Source Program

Annual Report (January 1, 1999, to December 31,

1999).

Submitted by Sheila Besse, D.C. Department of

Health.

Submitted by Sheila Besse, D.C. Department of

Health.

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

34

36

State Success Story Source Page
Appendix A-3

Appendix (cont.)

Florida

Florida

Georgia

Georgia

Guam

Hawaii

Hawaii

Idaho

Idaho

Idaho

Blackwater River

Restoration: Project

Demonstrates Mechanics

of Erosion and

Effectiveness of BMPs

Brevard County’s Urban

Storm Water Retrofitting

Projects: Lessons Learned

About Design, Location,

and Monitoring

Broad River Streambank

Stabilization Project: Tree

Revetments Rescue

Eroding Banks

North Griffin Storm Water

Detention Pond Project:

Constructed Wetland

System Protects Water,

Wins Award

Ugum Watershed Project:

Students Plant Acacia

Seedlings to Help Restore

Watershed

He’eia Coastal Restoration

Project: Thousands of

Volunteers Replace Alien

Plants with Native Species

Integration of Aquaculture

with Taro Production:

Nonpoint Source

Pollutants Reduced in

Demonstration Project

Conservation in Hatwai

Creek: Partners Work

Together on Four

Successful Projects

Restoring the Paradise

Creek Watershed: Phased

Approach Implemented

to Address Pollution and

Flooding

Streambank Stabilization

in the Thomas Fork

Watershed: Photo

Monitoring Sells

Landowners on Bank

Stabilization

Submitted by Eric Livingston, Florida Department

of Environmental Protection.

Submitted by Eric Livingston, Florida Department

of Environmental Protection.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the project brochure Protecting &

Enhancing Streambanks in the Broad River

Watershed, Chestatee-Chattahoochee Resource

Conservation & Development Council, Inc.

Submitted by Jim Wren, Oconee River RC&D.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program

web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/

projects/index.htm.

Submitted by Michael Lee, EPA Region 9, Pacific

Insular Area Programs, Guam Water Program

Lead.

Submitted by Denis Lau, P.E., Chief, Clean Water

Branch, State of Hawaii, Department of Health.

Submitted by Denis Lau, P.E., Chief, Clean Water

Branch, State of Hawaii, Department of Health.

Submitted by Gary Dailey, Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality.

Submitted by Gary Dailey, Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality.

Submitted by Craig Thomas, Bear Lake Regional

Commission.

37

38

40

41

42

43

44

45

47

49

State Success Story Source Page
A-4 Appendix

Appendix (cont.)

Illinois

Illinois

Indiana

Indiana

Iowa

Iowa

Iowa

Kansas

Kansas

Kentucky

Lake Pittsfield Project:

Ninety Percent Reduction

in Sediment Loading

Achieved

Restoration of the Flint

Creek Watershed:

Restoration Partnership

Completes Multiple

Projects

Blue River Riparian

Reforestation: The Nature

Conservancy Gets

Landowners Involved

Little Pine Creek and

Indian Watersheds:

Constructed Wetland

System Averts Agricultural

Nonpoint Source Pollution

Bigalk Creek Watershed

Project: Rainbow Trout

Population Rebounds

The Lake Fisher Water

Quality Project: Chipped

Tires Help Protect Public

Water Supply

Pine Creek Water Quality

Project: Life Expectancy

of Pine Lakes Extended

Braeburn Golf Course

Project: Nitrates Reduced

by More Than 80 Percent

On-site Sewage Disposal

on Difficult Sites: Special

Conditions Demand

Alternative Response

Elkhorn Creek BMP

Demonstration Project:

Farmers See Water Supply

Alternatives in Action

Submitted by Barb Lieberoff, Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency.

Submitted by Barb Lieberoff, Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency.

Submitted by Jill Reinhar, Indiana Department of

Environmental Management,

jreinhar@dem.state.in.us.

Submitted by Jill Reinhar, Indiana Department of

Environmental Management,

jreinhar@dem.state.in.us.

Submitted by Kevin Baskins, Iowa Department of

Natural Resources.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Iowa’s nonpoint source brochures at

www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiza/epd/wtrq/

npsource/nptbro.htm. Submitted by Kevin

Baskins, Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Iowa’s nonpoint source brochures at

www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiza/epd/wtrq/

npsource/nptbro.htm. Submitted by Kevin

Baskins, Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the Wichita State University web site on the

Braeburn Golf Course Project at http://

webs.wichita.edu/biology/319Web/

Braeburn_Golf_Course_Project.htm. Submitted

by Lisa Duncan, Kansas Department of Health

and Environment, and Nate Davis, Wichita State

University.

Submitted by Lisa Duncan, Kansas Department of

Health and Environment.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program

web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/

projects/index.htm.

50

52

53

55

56

57

59

60

62

63

State Success Story Source Page
Appendix A-5

Appendix (cont.)

Louisiana

Louisiana

Maine

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

Michigan

Michigan

Minnesota

Bayou Plaquemine Brule:

Louisiana Applies Satellite

Imagery to Watershed

Planning and

Management

Flat River and Red Chute

Bayou Watersheds: BMPs

Reduce Soil Loss

Highland Lake Watershed

Project: Hotspots Model

Links Land Use and Water

Quality

Silver Spring Brook

Watershed

Demonstration Project:

Landowners’ Cooperation

Plus Town’s Commitment

Equals Success

Evaluating the

Effectiveness of

Maryland’s Forestry BMPs:

Paired Watershed Study

Tests BMP Performance

Broad Marsh River Storm

Water Remediation

Project: Infiltration

Structures Reduce

Pollutants, Save Shellfish

Beds

Lake Tashmoo Storm

Water Remediation

Project: First Flush

Leaching Basins More

Effective Than Expected

Innovative Farmers of

Michigan: Blending Farm

Profitability and Water

Quality Protection

Little Rabbit River

Watershed Project: Oneto-One Approach Wins

Landowners’ Support

North St. Paul Urban

Ecology Center: Wetland

Improvements Needed to

Control Storm Water

Submitted by Jan Boydstun, Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Louisiana’s Nonpoint Source Management

Program’s Annual Report (2000). Submitted by Jan

Boydstun, Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality.

Submitted by Norm Marcotte, Maine Department

of Environmental Protection.

Submitted by Norm Marcotte, Maine Department

of Environmental Protection.

N/A

Submitted by Elizabeth McCann, Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection.

Submitted by Elizabeth McCann, Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection.

Submitted by Karol Smith, Michigan Department

of Environmental Quality.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the Allegan Conservation District report The

Gateway to Natural Resources Management: Little

Rabbit Watershed Project. Submitted by Karol

Smith, Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality.

Submitted by Sarah Lehmann, EPA Region 5.

64

66

67

69

71

72

74

76

78

80

State Success Story Source Page
A-6 Appendix

Appendix (cont.)

Minnesota

Mississippi

Mississippi

Missouri

Missouri

Montana

Montana

Nebraska

Nebraska

Nevada

Nevada

New Hampshire

Prior Lake/Spring Lake

Improvement Project:

Long-Term

Implementation Strategy

Off to a Good Start

Muddy Creek Watershed

Demonstration Project:

BMPs Retain 3,500 Tons

of Soil per Year

Roebuck Lake

Demonstration Project:

Slotted-Board Risers

Installed to Save Topsoil

and Improve Water

Quality

Mississippi Delta Irrigation

Water Management

Project: Irrigation

Efficiency Improved

Upper Niangua Grazing

Demonstration Project:

Counties Unite to Start

Demonstration Farms

Careless Creek Watershed

Project: Sediment Delivery

Reduced by 25 Percent

Restoration in Muddy

Creek: Will a Name

Change Be Needed?

Walnut Creek Lake

Project: Partnership Drives

Watershed Protection

Wellhead Protection in

Guide Rock: Village

Closes Abandoned Wells

to Protect Water Supply

Martin Slough Water

Quality Enhancement

Project: Water Quality

Improves in the Upper

Carson River Basin

Middle Carson River

Restoration Project:

Bioengineering Used to

Restore Unstable Banks

Chocorua Lake Project:

BMPs Reduce Phosphorus

by 82 Percent

Submitted by Sarah Lehmann, EPA Region 5.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program

web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/

projects/index.htm.

N/A

Submitted by Becky Shannon and Tod Hudson,

Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

Submitted by Becky Shannon and Colleen

Meredith, Missouri Department of Natural

Resources.

Submitted by Jim Bauermeister, Montana

Department of Environmental Quality.

Submitted by Jim Bauermeister, Montana

Department of Environmental Quality.

Submitted by Elbert Traylor, Nebraska Department

of Environmental Quality.

Submitted by Elbert Traylor and Tom Malmstrom,

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.

Submitted by: Mary Kay Riedl, Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection.

Submitted by Mary Kay Riedl, Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection.

Submitted by Eric Williams, New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Services.

81

83

84

85

87

90

92

94

95

97

98

100

State Success Story Source Page
Appendix A-7

Appendix (cont.)

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Jersey

New Mexico

New Mexico

New York

New York

North Carolina

North Carolina

North Dakota

Lake Opechee Watershed

Project: City-State

Partnership Takes on

Multiple Pollutants

Restoration of Strawbridge

Lake: Volunteers Assist in

Stabilizing Shoreline and

Constructing Wetlands

The Stony Brook-Millstone

Watershed Restoration

Project: Streamwatch

Volunteers Monitor

Success of Restoration

Efforts

Lower Bitter Creek

Restoration Project:

Sediment Loads Reduced

by Implementing BMPs

Valle Grande Grass Bank

Water Quality

Improvement Project:

Success Breeds More

Success

Keuka Lake Watershed:

Grape Growers

Implement Soil

Conservation Practices

Wappingers Creek

Watershed: AEM Plays a

Vital Role

Edenton Storm Water

Wetland Project: Wetland

Systems Reduce Nitrogen

Concentrations

Goose Creek Urban Stream

Rehabilitation Project:

Ecosystem Protection

Practices Installed in LowIncome Neighborhood

Cottonwood Creek

Watershed: Project Is a

Success in the Works

Submitted by Eric Williams, New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Services.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection’s Watershed Focus (Summer 2000).

Submitted by Liz Semple, New Jersey Department

of Environmental Protection.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection’s Watershed Focus (Summer 2000).

Submitted by Liz Semple and Mike Haberland,

New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection.

Submitted by Peter Monahan, New Mexico

Environment Department.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from FY 2000 Work Plan, Valle Grande Grass Bank

Water Quality Improvement Projects: A Composite

of Projects Within the Valle Grande Grass Bank

Program. Submitted by Peter Monahan, New

Mexico Environment Department.

Information for this success story was gleaned from

Agricultural Environmental Management Report

(2000) and the Keuka Lake Association web site at

www.keukalakeassoc.org/. Submitted by Lester

Travis, Yates County Soil and Water Conservation

District, and Barbara Silvestri, New York State Soil

and Water Conservation Committee.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the draft Agricultural Environmental

Management Report (2001). Submitted by

Barbara Silvestri, New York State Soil and Water

Conservation Committee.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program

web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/

projects/index.htm. For more information on the

project, go to www.bae.ncsu.edu/research/

evans_web/etd/klbass.pdf. Submitted by Alan

Clark, North Carolina Division of Water Quality.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program

web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/

projects/index.htm. Submitted by Alan Clark,

North Carolina Division of Water Quality.

Submitted by Greg Sandness, North Dakota

Department of Health.

101

103

104

105

107

109

110

111

113

114

State Success Story Source Page
A-8 Appendix

Appendix (cont.)

North Dakota

Ohio

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oklahoma

Oklahoma

Oregon

Oregon

Oregon

Red River Basin Riparian

Project: Turtle River Site

Passes the Test

Stillwater River Watershed

Protection Project: High

Local Interest Helps

Launch Watershed Project

Toussaint River Incentive

Improvement Program:

Buffer Project Becomes a

Model of Conservation

Partnership

Acid Mine Drainage

Treatment Wetlands: A

Sustainable Solution for

Abandoned Mine

Problems

Poteau River

Comprehensive Watershed

Management Program:

Local Involvement Ensures

Program Sustainability

The Spring Creek Project:

Streambanks Stabilized

Through Stream

Restoration

Dawson Wetland

Restoration Project:

Landowners and

Wetlands Both Win

South Myrtle Creek Ditch

Project: Removal of Dam

Benefits Aquatic Life

Wet Meadow Restoration

in the Upper Grande

Ronde Basin: Channel

Restoration Brings Cooler

Waters

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Quality Water Newsletter (Spring 1997),

www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/pubs/wq/qw/

v8n2/v8n2.htm. Submitted by Linda Kingery,

Riparian Project Manager, and Greg Sandness,

North Dakota Nonpoint Source Pollution

Management Coordinator.

Submitted by Alicia Brown, EPA Region 5.

Submitted by Alicia Brown, EPA Region 5.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Use of Staged Wetlands for Mitigation of

Acid Mine Drainage, Oklahoma’s FY 1995 319(h)

Task Report No. 800 (OCC Task No. 71), C9-

996100-03-0. Submitted by Scott Stoodley,

Oklahoma Conservation Commission.

Submitted by Shanon Phillips, Oklahoma

Conservation Commission, and Nikole Witt, EPA

Region 6.

Submitted by Greg Kloxin, Oklahoma

Conservation Commission.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality’s Watershed Improvement Project Bulletin:

Dawson Wetland Restoration Project, Douglas

County, Oregon. Submitted by Ivan Camacho,

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality’s Watershed Improvement Project Bulletin:

South Myrtle Creek Ditch Project, Douglas County,

Oregon. Project Completion Report by Bob

Kinyon, Umpqua Basin Watershed Council,

February 2001. Submitted by Ivan Camacho,

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Grande Ronde Section 319 National

Monitoring Program Project, Temperature

Monitoring Summary Report, 1993-1998 by Larry

Whitney, Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality.

117

119

120

122

124

126

128

129

131

State Success Story Source Page
Appendix A-9

Appendix (cont.)

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Carolina

South Dakota

South Dakota

Tennessee

Narrows Bioengineering

Project: Cold-Water

Fishery Restored Through

Bioengineering

Villanova’s Storm Water

Wetland Retrofit: BMP

Treats Runoff and

Provides Research Site

Coastal Nonpoint Source

Controls: Executive Order

Adopts Section 6217(g)

Management Measures as

Official Policy

Curran Brook

Sedimentation Pond:

Multiple Partners

Construct Storm Water

Control System

Galilee Salt Marsh

Restoration: Undersized

Culverts Replaced with

Self-Regulating Gates

Constructed Wetlands for

Failing Septic Tanks: New

Technologies Solve an

Old Problem

Stevens Creek Watershed

Project: Demonstration

Sites Show Reductions in

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

Big Stone Lake

Restoration Project: Better

Water Quality Improves

Fisheries, Recreation

Management-Intensive

Grazing Project: Rotational

Grazing Reduces Erosion,

Increases Profits

Ghost River Land

Acquisition Project: River

Protected by Restoring

Forested Wetlands

Information for this success story was gleaned from

The Narrows Bioengineering Section 319 Grant

Project Proposal and The Narrows Bioengineering

Section 319 Grant Project Final Report. Submitted

by Russell Wagner, Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Conversion of an Urban Stormwater

Detention Basin to a Wetland Best Management

Practice, Final Report (December 2000), and the

project web page at www87.homepage.

villanova.edu/robert.traver (select “319

Stormwater Wetland Retrofit”). Submitted by

Russell Wagner, Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection.

Submitted by Katie Lynch, EPA Region 2.

Submitted by Jim Riordan, Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management.

Submitted by Jim Riordan, Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program

web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/

projects/index.htm.

Information for this success story was gleaned (in

part) from The Stevens Creek Watershed Project

(Technical Report No. 010-99), December 1999.

Submitted by Doug Fabel, South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control.

Submitted by Duane Murphy, South Dakota

Department of Environment and Natural

Resources.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the South Dakota Association of

Conservation Districts’ web site at

www.sd.nacdnet.org/grazing/index.html.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program

web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/

projects/index.htm.

132

133

135

136

137

139

140

141

143

144

State Success Story Source Page
A-10 Appendix

Appendix (cont.)

Tennessee

Texas

Texas

Utah

Utah

Vermont

Vermont

Virginia

Virginia

Virgin Islands

Washington

Using Constructed

Wetlands to Clean Up

Pesticides: Container

Nurseries Will Benefit

from Successful Pilot-Scale

Study

Atrazine Problems in the

Lake Aquilla and Marlin

City Lake System: Farmers

Take a Proactive Stance

On-Farm Composting of

Dairy Cattle Solid Waste:

Protecting Water Quality

While Producing a Salable

Product

Little Bear River Project:

Voluntary Approaches

Yield Success

Success in the Chalk

Creek Watershed:

Reduced Phosphorus,

Enhanced Habitat Result

Flow Restoration Below

Hydroelectric Facilities:

Relicensing Offers

Opportunity to Increase

Stream Flows

Lake Champlain Basin

Watershed Project:

Significant Pollutant

Reductions Achieved

Cabin Branch Mine

Orphaned Land Project:

Flora and Fauna Benefit

from Mine Reclamation

Toncrae Mine Orphaned

Land Project: Mine Site

Reclamation Increases

Species Diversity

Virgin Islands Partnership:

Alternative Treatment

Systems Prevent

Contamination of Coastal

Waters

Best Management

Practices on Model Horse

Farms: Farm Plan

Management Reduces

Nutrients and Sediment

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program

web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/

projects/index.htm.

N/A

N/A

Submitted by Jack Wilbur, Utah Department of

Agriculture and Food.

Submitted by Jack Wilbur, Utah Department of

Agriculture and Food.

Submitted by Rick Hopkins, Vermont Agency of

Natural Resources.

Submitted by Rick Hopkins, Vermont Agency of

Natural Resources.

Submitted by Rick Hill, Virginia Department of

Conservation and Recreation.

Submitted by Rick Hill, Virginia Department of

Conservation and Recreation.

Submitted by Donna Somboonlakana, EPA

Region 2.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Year 2000 Report on Activities to Implement

Washington State’s Water Quality Plan to Control

Nonpoint Source Pollution, March 2001.

Submitted by Gabrielle Kirouac, Washington State

Department of Ecology.

146

147

148

149

151

153

154

156

158

160

161

State Success Story Source Page
Appendix A-11

Appendix (cont.)

Washington

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Wyoming

A Moo-ving Approach to

Dairy Waste Management:

Fecal Coliform Pollution

Reduced in Whatcom

County

Sediment Reduction in

Yakima River Basin: People

Become Stewards of Their

Own Watershed

The North Fork Project:

Farmers’ Cooperation

Leads to Proposed

Delisting of Degraded

River

Otter Creek Project: 319

National Monitoring

Program Goals Met

Success in Spring Creek

Watershed: Natural

Reproduction of Trout

Confirms Water Quality

Improvement

Jackson Hole Rodeo

Grounds Snow Storage

Site: Filtration System

Reduces Urban Storm

Water Runoff

Muddy Creek

Coordinated Resource

Management Project:

Cattle Ranches and Trout

Streams Can Coexist

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Year 2000 Report on Activities to Implement

Washington State’s Water Quality Plan to Control

Nonpoint Source Pollution, March 2001.

Submitted by Gabrielle Kirouac, Washington State

Department of Ecology.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Year 2000 Report on Activities to Implement

Washington State’s Water Quality Plan to Control

Nonpoint Source Pollution, March 2001.

Submitted by Gabrielle Kirouac, Washington State

Department of Ecology.

Submitted by Leo Essenthier, EPA Region 3.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Section 319 Nonpoint Source National

Monitoring Program Successes and

Recommendations by L.A. Lombardo, G.L.

Grabos, J. Spooner, D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, and

G.D. Jennings, NCSU Water Quality Group,

Biological and Agricultural Engineering

Department, North Carolina State University,

Raleigh. Submitted by Tom Davenport, EPA

Region 5.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Responses of Stream Habitat,

Macroinvertebrate, and Fish to Watershed BMPs:

Lessons From Wisconsin, by Lizhu Wang, John

Lyons, Paul Kanehl, David Marshall, and Michael

Sorge, Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources, Watershed Management 2000

Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada. Also see the EPA Region 5 web site at

www.epa.gov/r5water/wshednps/

sc_watershed.htm. Submitted by Russ

Rassmussen, Chief, Runoff Management Section,

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Submitted by Brian Lovett and Steve Bubnick,

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

Submitted by Steve Bubnick, Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality.

162

164

165

168

169

170

172

State Success Story Source Page
A-12 Appendix

Appendix (cont.)

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Illinois

North Dakota

Rhode Island

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Ranch Water Quality

Planning: Voluntary

Rangeland Management

Eases Impacts on

California Watershed

Colorado Water

Protection Project:

League of Women Voters

Guides Extensive Urban

NPS Campaign

Nonpoint Education for

Municipal Officials

(NEMO): Successful

Connecticut Project Used

as a Model Nationwide

Florida Yards &

Neighborhoods Program:

More than 1.2 Million

People Reached

The Salt Creek Wilderness:

Illinois Zoo Offers

Interactive Environmental

Learning Experience

North Dakota Eco-Ed

Camps: Thousands of

Students Have Fun While

Learning

University of Rhode Island

Onsite Wastewater

Training Center:

Pioneering Agency

Teaches, Demonstrates

Innovative Systems

Water Action Volunteers:

WAV and Its Partners

Make a Difference in

Wisconsin

Stream Monitoring

Network with Wyoming

Schools: Trained Teams

Initiate, Expand School

Monitoring Programs

Information for this success story was gleaned

from “Opportunity, Responsibility, Accountability,”

California Environmental Protection Agency, State

Water Resources Control Board.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Colorado Extensive Urban Nonpoint Source

Pollution Campaign, by Randy Ristau, Colorado

Department of Public Health and Environment,

EPA Region 8 Natural News (EPA 908-F-00-009),

Fall 2000. Submitted by Laurie Fisher, Colorado

Department of Public Health and Environment

Information for this success story was gleaned (in

part) from Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection web site at http://

dep.state.ct.us/wtr. Submitted by Mel Cote, EPA

Region 1, and Laurie Giannotti, University of

Connecticut Cooperative Extension System.

N/A

Submitted by Barb Lieberoff, Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from North Dakota Department of Health, Quality

Water Newsletter, Vol 8, No. 4 (Fall 1997).

Submitted by Jim Riordan, Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management.

Submitted by Carol Holden, NPS Education

Coordinator, Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources.

Submitted by Steve Bubnick, Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality.

175

176

177

179

180

182

183

184

185

State Success Story Source Page

INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Appendix A-13

Appendix (cont.)

California

Hawaii

Idaho

Massachusetts

New York

South Carolina

National

California

California

Florida

Georgia

California’s BIOS Program:

Growers Adopt WholeSystem Management

Approach to Reduce

Pesticide Use

Maui County Erosion and

Sediment Control Training

Project: Workshops

Explain Ordinance, Teach

BMP Installation

Idaho’s Dairy Pollution

Prevention Initiative:

Unique Program

Eliminates Direct Dairy

Discharges

Creating a Storm Water

Utility in Chicopee,

Massachusetts: Project

Praised as Outstanding

Planning Project

New York’s Agricultural

Environmental

Management Program:

Incentive-based Program

Helps Farmers Meet

Tough Standards

South Carolina Forestry

BMP Compliance Program:

Proactive Strategy Raises

BMP Compliance Rate

Statewide Clean Marina

Programs: BMPs,

Recognition, and

Outreach Help Protect

Coastal Resources

California’s Water Bond

Program

California’s Loan

Programs

Florida Forever Program

Georgia’s Greenspace

Program

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Opportunity, Responsibility, Accountability,

California Environmental Protection Agency, State

Water Resources Control Board.

Submitted by Denis Lau, P.E., Chief, Clean Water

Branch, State of Hawaii, Department of Health.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from The Idaho Dairy Pollution Prevention

Initiative, Innovations in American Government

2001 Semifinalist Application, April 2001.

Submitted by Gary Voerman and Warren McFall,

EPA Region 10.

Submitted by Elizabeth McCann, Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Agricultural Environmental Management

Report (2000 and 2001). Submitted by Gerard

Chartier, New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, and Barbara

Silvestri, New York State Soil and Water

Conservation Committee.

Submitted by Doug Fabel, South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control.

N/A

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.swrcb.ca.gov/prop13/

Information for this success story was gleaned

from Opportunity, Responsibility, Accountability,

California Environmental Protection Agency, State

Water Resources Control Board.

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.dca.state.fl.us/ffct/

florida_forever_program.html

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.ganet.org/dnr/greenspace/index.html

187

189

191

193

195

197

198

201

202

202

203

State Success Story Source Page

INNOVATIVE STATE PROGRAMS

STATE FUNDING PROGRAMS
A-14 Appendix

Appendix (cont.)

Iowa

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Minnesota

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

National

National

Iowa’s Water Quality

Initiative

Maine’s Funding

Programs

Clean Michigan Initiative

Minnesota’s Clean Water

Partnership Program

Reinvest in Minnesota

(RIM) Program

New Hampshire’s Water

Supply Land Conservation

Grant Program

New Jersey’s Funding

Programs

New York’s Clean Water/

Clean Air Bond Act

North Carolina’s Clean

Water Management Trust

Fund

Clean Ohio Fund

Oregon’s Watershed

Restoration Grants

Pennsylvania’s Growing

Greener Program

Vermont’s Funding

Programs

Virginia’s Water Quality

Improvement Act

Washington’s Water

Quality Funding Programs

Wisconsin’s Grant

Programs for Runoff

Management

State Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Programs

Clean Water State

Revolving Fund Programs

Information for this success story was gleaned

from The Iowa Water Quality Initiative: Better

Water for a Better Iowa, Department of Natural

Resources and the Department of Agriculture and

Land Stewardship (August 2000).

Submitted by Norm Marcotte, Maine Department

of Environmental Protection.

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.state.mi.us/exec/cmi/cmiimp/html.

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.pca.state.mn.us/water/cwpartner.html.

Information for this success story was gleaned from

The RIM Program Annual Report (January 2000).

Submitted by Carol Holden, NPS Education

Coordinator, Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources.

Submitted by Steve Bubnick, Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality.

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.dec.state.ny.us/website/bondact/index.html.

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.cwmtf.net.

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.dnr.state.oh.us/cleanohiofund.

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.oweb.state.or.us.

Submitted by Russ Wagner, Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection.

Submitted by Eric Perkins, EPA Region 1.

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.dcr.state.va.us/sw/wqia.htm.

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/funding.

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/nps/

npsprogram.html.

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crep/crepstates.htm

Information for this story was gleaned from

www.epa.gov/owm/cwsrf.htm.

203

205

206

206

207

208

208

209

209

210

210

211

212

213

214

214

215

215

State Success Story Source Page
Appendix A-15

Appendix (cont.)

California Tribal

Idaho Tribal

Mississippi Tribal

Montana Tribal

North Carolina

Tribal

Restoring Watersheds by

Decommissioning Forest

Roads: Karuk Tribe and

Forest Service Form

Successful Partnership

Winchester Lake

Watershed Project: Local

Partners Join in

Implementing TMDL Plan

Water Quality Best

Management Practices

Plan: Choctaw Tribe

Addresses Soil Erosion

Restoring Little Porcupine

Creek: Alternative Water

Sources and Grazing

Rotation Help to Restore

Stream

Streambank Restoration

at Bradley and

Standingdeer

Campgrounds: An

Innovative Solution Solves

a Common Problem

Information for this success story was gleaned (in

part) from A Watershed Restoration Partnership,

Karuk Tribe of California/Six Rivers and Klamath

National Forest. Submitted by Jenee Gavette, EPA

Region 9.

Submitted by Gary Dailey, Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program

web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/

projects/index.htm.

Submitted by Barbara Burkland, EPA Region 8.

Information for this success story was gleaned

from the EPA Region 4 Nonpoint Source Program

web site at www.epa.gov/region4/water/nps/

projects/index.htm.

217

219

220

221

221

State Success Story Source Page

TRIBAL SECTION 319 PROJECTS