 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
research: bacteria tmdl implementation control strategies of the southeast: recommendations for georgia Alabama | North Carolina | South Carolina | Virginia When comparing TMDL and 319 NPS programs in other states, it is often a case of comparing apples and oranges. States allocate money and organize resources differently; therefore I am highlighting particular structures and programs that are successful and have a possibility of adoption in Georgia. Below you will find documents and web links for further information about these useful bacteria TMDL control strategies found in other states of the Southeast. Recommendations made do not intend to preclude current Georgia programs or imply that these programs are not successful. A synthesis of bacteria control strategies and projects in neighboring states will spark regional dialogue and collaboration to meet mutual TMDL implementation goals. The following recommendations can be used to assist in an understanding of what options are available, a review or update of current structures and programs, or inspire new water quality projects. Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) ADEM NPS Annual Reports Alabama Clean Water Partnership The Alabama Clean Water Partnership (CWP), a statewide nonprofit established in 2001, coordinates statewide watershed planning and management efforts. In terms of TMDL development and implementation, the CWP acts as an inclusive and neutral forum for watershed stakeholders (Cleland 2006). A steering committee is in place in each major river basin to facilitate communication between stakeholders and activities (ADEM 2005). The designated CWP leverages human and financial capital to address TMDL development and implementation, education and outreach, Phase II stormwater, drinking water protection, and other water quality issues in the state of Alabama (Cleland 2006). Having local stakeholders as members of the CWP really assists the State with water quality improvement efforts because they are able to gain the trust of the community (Hughes, personal communication 2006). By organizing TMDL implementation from a non-governmental perspective, more non-traditional stakeholders may also join the TMDL implementation public participation process. Alabama Water Watch Alabama Water Watch (AWW) is a type of community-based monitoring in which citizens can provide large amounts of cost-effective and credible water quality data to resource managers. Since the program was established in 1992, more than 4,000 citizens have become certified water monitors. They have tested 1,400 sites on 500 water bodies in Alabama and shared watersheds of neighboring states. AWW volunteer monitors participate in CWP projects statewide and are having a significant affect on water quality improvement efforts in the State. William (Bill) Deutsch, at Auburn University, is now using AWW as a model for similar program across the world called Global Water Watch (GWW). As AWW grew, it took on more of a role in the development of TMDLs and other aspects of remediation. As of 2003, roughly forty experienced AWW volunteers have become certified trainers and quality assurance officers who conduct about ninety percent of the fifty to sixty workshops offered each year (Deutsch 2003). Highlights of the program include online data entry and GIS mapping as well as five volumes of "Citizens Guide to Alabama Rivers." Community-based programs such as AWW are an excellent solution for communities and states faced with a lack of funding for water quality efforts. By organizing volunteers and increasing the support for water quality improvements, multiple goals of outreach and measurable success can be met. Troy State University's document on the Alabama NPS Management Program North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Clean Water Management Trust Fund NC REINS Program In 1995, the Regional Equine Information Network System (REINS) program was established by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension. REINS is coordinated by Extension Horse Husbandry at NCSU and participating county extension agents. Extension agents organize volunteers and horse owners in a multi-county area to create regional REINS organizations. Through these extension agents, volunteers are able to assist in trainings and other methods to link educational efforts of the North Carolina Horse Council and the marketing support of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. REINS volunteers are horse producers in each county who receive 38 hours of training on horse management and science topics, teaching technique and program planning. Benefits to volunteers include receiving specialized training and knowledge and connecting with other producers in their community. Over 110 REINS certified voluneteers are organized into 14 regions servicing all 100 North Carolina counties. From numerous online sources and personal communication with Greg Jennings (NCSU professor and extension specialist), I found that the REINS program has been successful in disseminating equine information throughout the State. For example, in 2000, REINS volunteers provided over 15,000 hours of service to over 26,000 horse owners through conferences, tours, and on-farm demonstrations. A 319 project on horse manure and pasture management used the REINS network to disseminate knowledge about horse manure and pasture management BMPs through field days, demonstration sites, workshops, newsletters, and other educational programs. The goal of the project was "to improve water quality protection on and around horse operations by increasing the understanding of horse owners about best management practices that can be used on their farms" (Jennings et al. 2005). Over 300 horse owners and farm managers were reached through field days and meetings; and several thousand horse owners were provided information through newsletters and web sites. Project leaders reported that "horse owners are anxious to implement BMPs because of the potential for improved water quality in addition to on-farm cost savings . . . and typical small horse farm owners indicated that they can save approximately $100 per year due to improved pastures" (Jennings et al. 2005). Several best management practices were installed on horse farms. BMPs that were successfully implemented on horse farms are: pasture and waste management practices include nutrient and waste management, rotational stocking, rotational grassed exercise paddocks, passive and forced aeration compost systems and manure storage facilities. Where appropriate, streambank protection measures included streamback exclusion, riparian buffers, stream crossings, and stream stabilization measures. Workshops, field days and demonstrations were also used to promote BMP implementation for equine waste and pasture management throughout the State. Links:
Crowders Creek FC Impairment Assessment & Restoration (urban BMP 319 project) Mecklenburg Co. SWIM Program and TMDL Implementation Plan for Sugar, Little Sugar, and McAlpine Creeks Sugar, Little Sugar and McAlpine Creek are streams in heavily urbanized areas of Mecklenburg County impaired by bacteria pollution from point and non-point sources. TMDLs for fecal coliform were developed by Mecklenburg County for the streams through a twelve month stakeholder process including NC DENR, Sierra Club, Catawba RiverKeeper, and SC DHEC; and approved by EPA in March 2002. Various planning decisions and factors resulted in a successful and well-done implementation plan.
Monthly monitoring is conducted on the stream segments to collect data to measure the success of the groups' efforts. To ensure proper documentation and communication of progress toward water quality goals, WQP is collecting data from the responsible entities and sharing it on a monthly basis to the general public through their website and on an annual basis to NC DENR and SC DHEC via written reports. This regimen will also assist WQP in its efforts to implement adaptive management and make modifications for maximum effectiveness. Thus far, fecal coliform has declined by 60-70% in the three watersheds. Links:
South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), Bureau of Water, Watersheds and Planning South Carolina DHEC, NPS Annual Report (pdf) Coneross Creek and Beaverdam Creek TMDL Implementation Project
Another aspect of the project's success is the ability of the project managers to identify the needs of the people in the watershed. The project managers realized that certain outreach tools would not be effective because of the lifestyles and characteristics of the residents. Constructed Wetlands for Failing Septic Systems
The Ninety Six District Resource Conservation & Development Council, along with partners, installed ten subsurface flow constructed wetland systems to replace failing septic systems for individual homeowners in the Laurens and Saluda counties of South Carolina (Ninety Six 2000). The purpose of 319-funded Project 19 was to prevent FC bacteria from entering impaired streams and lakes through failing septic systems, while also providing education and outreach to homeowners and contractors on constructed wetland technology and bacteria non point source pollution abatement. The project period was 36 months from the date of the award in 2000. The total cost of Project 19 was $115,000: $67,000 federal and $48,000 non-federal match. BMPs and Responsible Homestead Practices to Reduce Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Horse Range Swamp Watershed - "Faith-based outreach" Seabrook realized that many of the people in the watershed community used the church as their main source for information. Using the phonebook as a guide, Mr. Seabrook proceeded to write letters to every church in the watershed explaining the project and asking if he could come and speak with their members. Rockhill AME Church, specifically, provided the project with an opportunity to reach multi-age groups and families (Seabrook 2004). Through the church, the project leaders emphasized a family-focused program to encourage water-friendly practices around the homestead and farm (Seabrook 2004). Once being accepted by one church, it was then easier to gain the trust of other congregations as word quickly spread about his project. To assist in gaining the trust of the community, Harold Seabrook befriended a farmer of each race to accompany him on site visits. Seabrook could see a difference when he brought along these partners in the community as the residents looked more comfortable and were more willing to communicate with him and his assistants (personal communication 2006). Seabrook also commented that he thought it best to "know your audience." When he approached farmers, for instance, he found it best to work with NRCS agents since they had a better connection with the farming community (personal communication 2006). VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Soil and Water Conservation Programs VA Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ), TMDL homepage VA Tech Center for TMDL and Watershed Studies
VADCR: Water Quality Improvement Act and Fund VA Guidance Manual for TMDL Implementation Plans (July 2003) According to Charlie Lunsford (VADCR, TMDL Program Manager), they will be updating the guidance manual soon with more information relating to urban systems since they have now completed more implementation plans in urban environments. One of the most beneficial aspects of the Guidance Manual is the format. The document describes each "section" of the implementation plan, from the executive summary to potential funding sources. Therefore each section of the Guidance Manual details what should be included in that section of the implementation plan. In terms of the staged implementation process, the Guidance Manual explains that this is an "iterative process that first addresses those sources with the largest impact on water quality" (VADCR and VADEQ 2003). To provide an example, the Guidance Manual refers to the BMP of livestock exclusion. This would be a preferable BMP for the initial stage of the process due to its proven effectiveness in reducing bacteria loads from cattle deposits and additional buffering of the riparian zone. Combining this BMP with the elimination of straight pipes and other sources of human contamination would "attack" many of the potential non-point sources in the first stage of implementation. Since monitoring occurs simultaneously, the hope is that water quality improvements can be recorded as they occur and shed light on performance rates of particular NPS BMPs and other guidance for BMP implementation. Virginia's TMDL Guidance Manual will be analyzed and discussed more in the following chapter on recommendations for the state of Georgia.
VA BMP Implementation Funding Sources
VA: Upper Roanoke River Roundtable (URRR) pet awareness project VA: Four Mile Run bacteria implementation project |
||||||||
|
Visit Our Partners:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
The Coneross and Beaverdam Creek TMDL implementation project is of particular importance not only because of its overall success, but the amount of qualitative data the project managers were able to gather to prove the benefit experienced by livestock operators and homeowners. The combination of qualitative and quantitative data to illustrate BMP successes strengthens the argument for continued TMDL implementation as a tool for improving water quality and is appreciated by EPA Region IV (Barkley, personal communication 2006). 
Another Section 319 project focusing on the continued failure of septic systems uses individual sub-surface constructed wetlands to treat onsite sewage in rural residences of South Carolina. The failure of septic systems in the rural counties of Laurens and Saluda was potentially caused or complicated by a problem with the soil suitability of the region. According to the Project 19 South Carolina workplan, of the more than one hundred individual soils that occur in the project area, many are not well suited for septic tank use and directly contribute to the failure of many septic systems (2000). While some of these siting issues could be alleviated by using better installation methods or increasing or rotating the drainfield, sub-surface constructed wetlands introduce themselves as a viable option of on-site sewage disposal for individual homeowners (Bowdler, personal communication 2006). 
