WASHINGTON, DC, January 21, 2009 (ENS) – In one of the final acts of the Bush administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it will set “water quality standards for nutrients” for all Florida surface waters. The standards will apply to concentrations of the agricultural nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus in state waters.

The EPA has issued a formal determination under the Clean Water Act that “numeric” nutrient water quality criteria are necessary in Florida.

“We are taking the significant step today of requiring numeric nutrient standards for water quality,” said Benjamin Grumbles, EPA’s assistant administrator for water, making the announcement on Friday. “We look forward to working closely with the state to develop improved standards that will accelerate the protection and restoration of Florida’s waters.”

Grumbles said numeric nutrient criteria will improve Florida’s ability to address nutrient pollution in a timely and effective manner.

Excess nitrogen and phosphorus levels, known as nutrient pollution, in waterbodies can cause harm to aquatic ecosystems and threaten public health.

Nutrient pollution can lead to water quality problems such as harmful algal blooms, low-oxygen dead zones in water bodies such as the Gulf of Mexico and declines in wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Florida’s 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment shows that 1,000 miles of rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of lakes, and 900 square miles of estuaries are impaired by nutrients. The actual numbers are likely higher, as many waters that have yet to be assessed may also be impaired.

Black algae bloom and sewage in Florida’s St. Lucie River, April 2008 (Photo by William Djubin)

While recognizing that local governments in Florida have improved wastewater treatment and stormwater management and some growers have implemented best management practices for nutrient control, the EPA’s January 14, 2009 determination letter states that poor water quality in Florida is “likely to worsen” without federal action.

In the determination letter, the EPA notes that the Florida Department of Environment Protection has spent “over $20 million in collecting and analyzing data” but has yet to develop numeric standards.

The EPA letter states that it “expects to propose numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing waters within 12 months, and for estuaries and coastal waters, within 24 months.” This timeline hands these tasks on to the incoming Obama administration.

Since 1998, the EPA has been encouraging states to adopt their own numeric and narrative water quality criteria for nutrients, which EPA would then either approve or send back for revision.

“EPA recognizes Florida as a national leader in managing nutrient pollution but more needs to be done,” said Grumbles.

Mike Sole, secretary of the Florida Department of Environment Protection said he accepts that Florida has not adequately controlled the runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus into state waters.

“The State of Florida recognizes that more needs to be done to address nutrient pollution in our rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries, and these actions will help our state and all of our stakeholders prevent and better manage sources of nitrogen and phosphorus from entering our waters,” said Sole.

EPA published recommended nutrient criteria for most streams and lakes across the country in 2001. A combined strategy of EPA, state, territorial, and tribal partnership supported by technical assistance was intended to jumpstart progress on what the EPA calls “a difficult and challenging problem.”

Some states and territories have established numeric standards for priority waterbodies. Others are in the process of collecting data and preparing to develop them. Still others are in the earlier stages of planning and deciding which standards development approach will work best for them

In 1998, only 13 states had any numeric standards at all, either for selected, high priority waterbodies or for entire waterbody types.

As of December 2008, 25 states have developed some numeric standards, but the other 25 states still have no numeric standards at all for nutrient pollution.

Grumbles said the EPA explects Florida to accelerate its efforts to adopt numeric nutrient criteria into state regulations.

The EPA itself is under court order to improve the state nutrient pollution program.

The federal agency has been subject to a series of adverse court decisions ruling that it has been derelict in protecting Florida’s water quality, particularly as it affects the Everglades.

The most recent court decision takes EPA to task for violating the same Clean Water Act that it is supposed to administer.

On July 29, 2008, Miami U.S. District Judge Alan Gold found that the federal agency had shirked its duty to enforce basic water quality standards and, in so doing, “violated its fundamental commitment and promise to protect the Everglades” and “acted arbitrarily and capriciously.”

In July 2008, five environmental groups filed a lawsuit to compel the EPA and the state of Florida to set numeric limits on the excess nutrients.

“Unfortunately, it is common knowledge in South Florida that EPA regional managers will do everything possible to accommodate the state and the only way to get them to enforce the Clean Water Act is to sue them, which is a very sad commentary,” said Ann Hauck of the Council of Civic Associations, based in Lee County, Florida.

“The bottom line is that the Everglades continues to deteriorate,” said Hauck immediately following Judge Gold’s ruling. “According to EPA Region 4’s own recently released Everglades Assessment Report, the area of the Everglades negatively impacted by discharges from the Everglades Agricultural Area has increased under the current Region 4 management.”

Click here [www.ens-newswire.com] to see previous ENS coverage of this issue.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

BOSTON, Massachusetts, December 1, 2008 (ENS) – The U.S. EPA and the state of Massachusetts are about to impose stormwater permit controls on industrial, commercial and high-density residential facilities in the Charles River watershed.

Stormwater containing high levels of phosphorus is blamed for neon blue-green algae blooms of toxic cyanobacteria that have taken over the river in the summer months for the past several years.

The federal and state actions will require the owners of industrial, commercial and residential facilities in the upstream towns of Milford, Franklin, and Bellingham with two or more acres of impervious area – such as parking lots, roofs, and roads – to operate under a Clean Water Act permit.

“Polluted stormwater runoff causes serious water quality problems, and is the next great challenge for cleaning the Charles River,” said Robert Varney, regional administrator of the EPA’s New England office.

“By working closely with Massachusetts and our other partners, we will make great environmental improvements, while at the same time providing facilities with flexibility and time to meet the new standards,” Varney said. “Working together cooperatively, we can solve these problems.”

The new actions, announced in November, will ensure that property owners take responsibility for runoff from their sites.

Blue-green algae on the Charles River as
it flows through Boston, Massachusetts
(Photo courtesy EPA)

In a separate but related action, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is enacting a statewide requirement for facilities with five or more acres of impervious area to reduce stormwater runoff.

“Many of our state’s waters are severely degraded as a result of stormwater pollution,” said Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles. “Now is the time to take action to reduce pollution and return more water to the ground, where it will be cleaned naturally and added to our water supplies.”

Under both the federal and state actions, new requirements will be phased in to reduce polluted stormwater runoff at sites with large paved areas, including shopping malls and industrial areas.

While the statewide standard will be five acres, Massachusetts is proposing to match EPA’s two-acre requirement in the Charles, where a higher level of control is needed to address chronic water quality problems.

“Until now, managing stormwater has largely been the responsibility of the cities and towns,” said Laurie Burt, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. “It is critical now for other property owners to step up to the plate and do their part. This new program creates a level playing field by requiring that the responsibility for managing stormwater be shared by municipalities and private property owners.”

Cities and towns across Massachusetts have invested in improving their sewer and stormwater infrastructure, yielding substantial water quality benefits, said Varney.

“Our work will also help local municipalities, who up until now have shouldered the burden alone to take action to reduce pollution to our rivers, lakes and other waterways,” he said.

Commercial, industrial and high-density residential facilities with two or more acres of impervious area will be required apply for a Clean Water Act permit for stormwater discharges which eventually reach the Charles River.

The permits will require that these facilities reduce phosphorus discharges by 65 percent through a variety of stormwater management practices. Ultimately, these requirements will likely apply to the entire Charles River watershed, said state and federal officials.

“EPA’s extension of the Clean Water Act to include polluted stormwater runoff from commercial and industrial parking lots is both bold, and necessary,” said Bob Zimmerman, executive director of the Charles River Watershed Association.

“We will never clean up urban rivers without cleaning up existing runoff from pavement. This bold move will aid cities and towns meet their requirements, and help restore a more natural balance to the way water works in metropolitan regions, not just in the Charles River, but ultimately across the United States,” Zimmerman said.

“It is time for existing commercial and industrial developments to do their fair share to clean up the stormwater pollution that is threatening public health and recreation in New England’s waters,” said Christopher Kilian, director of the Conservation Law Foundation’s Clean Water and Healthy Forests Program. “The EPA took this precedent-setting action because the Clean Water Act’s mandates don’t allow this pollution to go unaddressed.”

In October 2007, EPA and the state began a process to limit phosphorus entering the Charles River by establishing a new Total Maximum Daily Load for discharges of phosphorus into the lower Charles River.

Since 1995, the EPA’s Clean Charles Initiative has coordinated efforts between EPA, state and local governments, private organizations, and environmental advocates. Cities and towns along the Charles have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in stormwater and sewer improvements.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

NEVADA CITY, California, November 19, 2008 (ENS) – Four dams on the Klamath River that have blocked salmon runs upstream to their spawning areas may be removed in the year 2020 under an historic agreement among federal, state and corporate parties.

Dam removal will re-open over 300 miles of habitat for the Klamath’s salmon and steelhead populations and eliminate water quality problems such as toxic algae blooms caused by the reservoirs.

The federal government, the state of California, the state of Oregon and the PacifiCorp electric utility Thursday announced an Agreement in Principle to remove the four dams as part of a broader effort to restore the river and revive its ailing salmon and steelhead runs and aid fishing, tribal and farming communities.

The agreement is intended to guide the development of a final settlement agreement scheduled to be signed in June 2009.

PacifiCorp’s Iron Gate dam on the Klamath
River in California. Green color of the
reservoir indicates the presence of
toxic algae. (Photo by Jim McCarthy)

“This is a historic announcement and the culmination of years of hard work from the numerous negotiators from the federal government and the states of California and Oregon, and PacifiCorp representatives who have worked toward a common goal of how best to protect the uniqueness of this region,” said Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne.

“We have agreed to a path forward that will protect fish, PacifiCorp customers and the local cultures and communities in the two-state Klamath River basin,” Kempthorne said.

The United States will make a final determination by March 31, 2012, whether the benefits of dam removal will justify the costs, informed by scientific and engineering studies conducted in the interim, and in consultation with state, local, and tribal governments and other stakeholders.

At that point, the United States shall designate a non-federal dam removal entity to remove the dams or decline to remove the dams.

Rebecca Wodder, president of the nonprofit American Rivers who for years has urged removal of the dams, said, “We have not popped the champagne cork yet, but we have put a bottle on ice. The initial agreement is a huge step toward a healthy Klamath River Basin. American Rivers looks forward to working out remaining details in the final negotiations.”

“This will be the world’s biggest dam removal project. But ultimately, this isn’t about tearing down dams. It is about restoring one of the most important rivers on the west coast, boosting local economies, and revitalizing fishing, tribal and farming communities.”

The Klamath River was once the third most productive salmon river system in the United States. Today, due to the dams, poor water quality and too little water left in the river, the Klamath salmon runs have are less than 10 percent of their historic size. Some species, such as coho salmon, are now in such low numbers in the Klamath River that they are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called the agreement “the largest dam removal project ever in history that California, Oregon and our federal and private partners are undertaking to improve water quality, water supply and fish populations in the Klamath region.”

“The health of the Klamath River is critical to the livelihood of numerous Northern California communities, and with this groundbreaking agreement we have established a framework for restoring an important natural resource for future generations,” he said.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski said, “While many months of work lay ahead, this historic agreement provides a path forward to achieve the largest river and salmon restoration effort ever undertaken in a way that’s good for fish, PacifiCorp customers, and local communities and our sovereign tribes.”

Tribal demonstration against the Klamath
Dams August 20, 2006. (Photo by Patrick
McCully)

The Klamath Tribes, along with the Karuk and Yurok tribes of California have for years sought removal of the dams.

“With Oregon’s best interests in mind, it is with great pride that I will be taking the first step in implementing this agreement by offering legislation to support the dam decommissioning and removal process,” Kulongoski said.

Assuming a final agreement is reached next year and pending congressional approval, PacifiCorp will set aside millions of dollars for immediate environmental improvements. The funds would be used to implement numerous measures that will enhance habitat, improve water quality, increase fish populations, and benefit fisheries management in the basin.

“This careful effort to balance the complex needs of numerous interests within the community is exactly the type of approach PacifiCorp takes every time we sit down to the settlement table,” said Greg Abel, PacifiCorp chairman and chief executive.

“This flexible framework ensures that our customers will be protected at every step along the way, while remaining consistent with our strong commitment to respecting the environment. We will continue to work diligently with everyone at the table, including the irrigators, environmentalists, the tribes and all local elected officials with the goal of reaching a final dam removal agreement that is in the economic interests of PacifiCorp customers.”

Wodder says PacifiCorp’s four dams produce only a nominal amount of power, which can be replaced using renewables and efficiency measures, without contributing to global warming.

A study by the California Energy Commission and the Department of the Interior found that removing the dams and replacing their power would save PacifiCorp customers up to $285 million over 30 years.

PacifiCorp agrees to contribute as much as $200 million to cover the cost of removing its four dams and restoring the river. Dam removal funds would be obtained from ratepayers in Oregon and California before removal begins. The impact to customer bills will be less than one percent.

If the costs of dam removal exceed PacifiCorp’s contribution, California and Oregon together would contribute up to $250 million. Current estimates of dam removal costs range between $75 million and $200 million.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SPOKANE, Washington, September 8, 2008 (ENS) – This week, scientists from the Washington state Department of Ecology will begin using a fluorescent dye to study flows in Hangman Creek, also known as Latah Creek. The information is being gathered in an effort to understand how to improve water quality in the creek.

The Hangman Creek watershed drains approximately 431,000 acres and spans across the Washington-Idaho border, draining parts of four counties.

“We want residents along the creek to know that they needn’t worry if they see a slight reddish, fluorescent tint in the stream during the week of September 8th,” said Joe Joy, an environmental scientist for the state agency.

“Using dye for this type of study is very common,” Joy said. “And research has long shown that the dye does not affect human health or aquatic life in any way at the very low concentrations we use.”

Researchers will track the plume of the dye with a fluorometer, an instrument that is able to detect the small amount of dye in the river.

Data collected from the flow test will reveal how long it takes water to move through a given stretch of the creek. The information will be used in computer models to help scientists understand the creek’s water quality problems.

“This flow study is part of Ecology’s efforts to develop a plan that will address low dissolved oxygen and pH impairments in the stream,” said Elaine Snouwaert, who is coordinating the agency’s water quality improvement plans for the Hangman Creek watershed.

Parts of Hangman Creek and several of its tributaries violate dissolved oxygen and pH water quality standards, endangering fish and other aquatic life.

The flow study will help determine the cause of these impairments. Common causes of dissolved oxygen and pH impairments are excess nutrients or sunlight entering the stream. Low stream flow makes these problems worse.

Hangman Creek and its tributaries also fail water quality standards for bacteria, temperature and turbidity. The Department of Ecology is currently working on a plan to address these problems.

The Spokane County Conservation District, too, is working with local residents, interest groups, and government organizations to address water quality issues in the Hangman Creek watershed.

The impacts of population growth, agricultural production, fisheries, and water pollution will be addressed as the project team members work together to develop recommendations for managing water resource and water quantity in the basin.

Upstream influences, land use changes, as well as stream channel and flood plain alterations, over the last 100 years contribute to what district scientists call “flashy” flow conditions and unstable stream banks.

Flows in Hangman Creek range from summer flows as low as 10 cubic feet per second to peak flows in excess of 20,000 cfs. Maximum discharge in Hangman Creek occurs from December through April, resulting from warm Chinook winds that induce rain on snow events. These events produce high turbid flows that can last a few hours to several weeks and occur many times within a season.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, June 30, 2008 (ENS) – The Washington state Congressional delegation has introduced legislation in the House and the Senate that would be a new source of grant funding for water quality and stormwater discharge projects in the Puget Sound area of northwest Washington.

Congressman Norm Dicks and Senator Maria Cantwell introduced the Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2008 on Wednesday, which will establish a distinct office within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate the expanded efforts to address pollution impacts on Puget Sound.

“As the nation’s second largest estuary, Puget Sound has a regional impact affecting four million area residents and sustaining a broad array of aquatic species,” said Dicks, who serves as the chairman of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee.

In that post, Dicks has spearheaded a new effort in recent years to increase the funding for research and remedial actions around Puget Sound, in coordination with the Washington state’s newly formed Puget Sound Partnership, a community effort of citizens, governments, tribes, scientists and businesses to restore and protect Puget Sound.

Puget Sound as seen from the
Seattle Space Needle (Photo
courtesy Wikipedia)

The Puget Sound Region is centered on Seattle and Tacoma and consists of nine counties, four satellite cities, and two major ports.

The Puget Sound Recovery Act, H.R. 6364, would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide assistance for programs and activities to protect the water quality of Puget Sound.

The bill would establish a Puget Sound office within the EPA that would have oversight responsibility for the cleanup actions on the Sound, including the development of a comprehensive action plan. The bill also authorizes grants to local communities to study the causes of water quality problems.

In addition, it authorizes grants for targeted remedial actions to counter these threats, as well as grants for sewer and stormwater discharge projects.

“Puget Sound is one of the most important waterways in the United States and is critical for the health of Washington’s economy and environment,” said Senator Cantwell. “However, the declining health of the Sound is putting this at risk.”

“By taking this step to help protect Puget Sound, we are helping the four million Americans who benefit from recreational and environmental opportunities, supporting $20 billion in economic activity annually,” the senator said.

Building upon Puget Sound cleanup efforts already underway at the local and state levels, the increased federal response authorized by the Puget Sound Recovery Act will be a model of scientific integrity, coordination between federal, state, local and tribal governments, and demonstrable achievement that is transparent and open to public scrutiny.

Area congressional representatives from the Puget Sound region – Representatives Jay Inslee, Rick Larsen, Brian Baird, Jim McDermott, Dave Reichert, and Adam Smith – all have joined as original co-sponsors of the legislation in the House.

The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Senator Patty Murray of Washington has co-sponsored the Senate version of the bill.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

BOSTON, Massachusetts, June 2, 2008 (ENS) – In a precedent-setting decision, a federal court judge ruled Friday that the Massachusetts Highway Department violated federal clean water law by failing to develop an adequate stormwater cleanup plan for its 2,500 miles of urban roads and bridges.

The decision, by Judge William Young, stems from a lawsuit filed by environmentalists charging MassHighway was not properly implementing a provision of the federal Clean Water Act requiring them to control and clean up polluted water that flows off roadways into neighboring lakes and streams.

Stormwater running off Massachusetts roads
now must be controlled for pollution.
(Photo by Nicole Perle)

Rivers, streams and lakes throughout Massachusetts have serious water quality problems due to untreated stormwater from state roads and bridges, the groups alleged.

After a six day trial, Judge Young ordered MassHighway to commit to a two-year schedule for adopting a new, revised stormwater pollution cleanup plan. The Judge also said the agency must quickly move to address pollution hot spots in Lancaster and the Charles River watershed.

“The court’s ruling is a landmark victory for every resident concerned about the impact this major source of water pollution has on their rivers, lakes and streams,” said Chris Kilian, director of the Clean Water and Healthy Forests Program at the Conservation Law Foundation, one of three New England environmental groups that brought the lawsuit.

Polluted stormwater is a significant factor in the ongoing failure of Massachusetts’s rivers and lakes to achieve basic water quality standards.

Rain water that falls during storms flows off roads picking up pollutants along the way – including oil and grease, toxic metals such as zinc, nickel, and lead, salt and other de-icing chemicals.

Unless steps are taken to control and treat the polluted stormwater, it flows directly from roads into rivers, streams and lakes, affecting the health of the entire ecosystem.

“MassHighway has long ignored their legal responsibility to protect the Commonweath’s water resources for the health of all residents. The Court has asked them to live up to that responsibility,” said Conservation Law Foundation Staff Attorney Cynthia Liebman who helped argue the case.

In 2006, the Conservation Law Foundation, the Charles River Watershed Association, and the Leominster Land Trust filed the federal lawsuit to improve water quality in the state’s water bodies after the Environmental Protection Agency ruled for a second time in as many years that the MassHighway’s stormwater cleanup plan was deficient and refused to issue the state agency a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

In 2007, while the case was being prepared for trial, MassHighway re-submitted its plan and the EPA granted it tentative approval.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

BELLINGHAM, Washington, May 8, 2008 (ENS) – Dishwasher detergents for sale in Whatcom County must be practically phosphorus free starting July 1.

A statewide ban across Washington on high-phosphorus dishwashing detergents does not take effect until 2010, but this year state legislation brings better water quality protection in two counties – Whatcom and Spokane – where delicate environmental conditions demand immediate action.

To improve water quality in lakes, rivers, streams and marine waters, Washington is phasing out the distribution and sale of detergents that contain more than 0.5 percent phosphorus.

Because soaps designed for washing dishes by hand are phosphorus-free already, the new requirement affects only soaps used in automatic dishwashers.

“The work we’ve done in Lake Whatcom highlights the sensitivity of our environment to phosphorus,” said Steve Hood, a water quality engineer at Ecology’s Bellingham office. “Everyone should do what they can to minimize how much phosphorus enters the environment.”

Phosphorus feeds algae blooms, and when algae die, their decay uses up oxygen, choking lakes and streams and suffocating salmon and other aquatic life. Large algae blooms may also result in the need for more treatment of drinking water supplies.

Lake Whatcom, the drinking water source for 87,000 people, is designated as an impaired water body because its oxygen levels are below state water quality standards. Ecology is working to determine how much phosphorus the lake can process and meet state standards for oxygen.

When the legal limit to phosphorus is in place in 2010, Hood says the real work will begin.

“This law isn’t going to be the single solution to our water quality problems,” Hood said. “Protecting our water from algae growth and oxygen depletion will require a significant change in the way we deal with stormwater. But we can all help by doing our part.”

The new limits on phosphorus in dishwasher detergent are an extension of low-phosphorus requirements in place for laundry detergent since 1994.

While the law establishes limits on phosphorus and deadlines for compliance, it does not provide for enforcement actions.

Richard Grout, manager of Ecology’s Bellingham office, said, “We’re relying on retailers and distributors to do the right thing. And people want clean water, so we anticipate Whatcom County residents will start reading labels to make sure the products on the shelves comply with the law.”

The law does allow one exception to the 0.5 percent phosphorus limit. In Whatcom County only, single-use packets of automatic dishwasher detergent that contain up to 2.0 grams of phosphorus per packet can be sold.

Many producers of popular dishwashing detergent brands have not yet developed effective phosphorus-free products for automatic dishwashers. But a few detergents are available now that meet the new requirements, and larger producers say they are developing new products that will comply with the new restrictions.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

COLUMBUS, Ohio, February 4, 2008 (ENS) – Ohio’s 23 large rivers have nearly reached Ohio EPA’s goal for 80 percent of large rivers to meet water quality standards by 2010, the agency said in a new report issued Thursday.

The report shows that 78.7 percent of the state’s large rivers now meet clean water goals.

Ohio EPA’s Division of Surface Water is seeking public comments on the list of impaired waterways proposed in the report that may require water quality cleanup plans. The report includes 243 of Ohio’s 331 watersheds.

A priority point system was used to rank the watersheds based on severity of impairment to designate which systems need the most immediate attention.

The public is invited to comment on the report through February 25, 2008.

Although progress also has been documented in smaller streams, more serious work is still needed. The average score for smaller streams that make up Ohio’s 331 watersheds is 54.7, an increase from 46.6 in 2002.

Since 1996, Ohio EPA has assessed 218 of Ohio’s 331 watersheds and developed plans to improve water quality in about 100 of those.

This is the first year that public drinking water supply nitrate and pesticide data were added to the water quality analysis. As a result, six streams in northwest and southwest Ohio were added to the list of impaired waters due to drinking water concerns.

The Ohio River flows through Cincinnati,
Ohio. (Photo by Derek Jensen)

While the treated drinking water delivered to customers is safe, unless otherwise posted by the water system, the Ohio EPA says cleanup is necessary to eliminate potential threats and the extra cost for treatment.

Most of today’s water quality problems are caused by disturbances of habitat in streams and on the land alongside streams and to the natural flow of waterways.

The increase in the amount of hard surfaces that drain quickly – such as rooftops, roadways and parking lots – contributes to additional stream impacts. The increase in residential development on land formerly used for agriculture is also a factor.

These issues cannot be solved by issuing permits or building a better treatment system to clean up pollution, the Ohio EPA says in its report.

“The solution lies in carefully crafting development and other land use changes to minimize water impacts, with plans to restore or maintain natural stream functions and preserve the land’s ability to store and drain water,” the agency says..

Ohio EPA has been addressing these issues by developing partnerships, solving problems collaboratively and educating participants about local water quality concerns and present conditions.

This year’s report includes an overview of water quality conditions in Ohio, including summaries for each region.

Category one waterways are those that meet all criteria, which is the toughest standard to attain, but when a waterway is not in complete attainment, it may still meet many water quality goals.

Category two waterways meet some of the designated uses but there is insufficient data to determine if the remaining indicators have been met. Fourteen waterways fall into these two categories.

Category three waterways are those where there is insufficient data to determine whether any designated uses have been met. Forty-seven of these areas still need to be studied.

Category four waterways are those with impaired or threatened water. This category includes 27 areas that are placed here because they already have a water quality plan in place.

Category five waterways are those that are impaired and require a water quality plan. Ohio EPA moved seven watersheds from Category 3 to 5, after additional study showed the need for water quality plans. There are more areas this year that are impaired with no water quality plan needed, because the cleanup plans for those watersheds are in place.

After reviewing the list, anyone wishing to submit comments about the watersheds included, their rankings or other comments about the report can do so by writing to the following addresses: e-mail trinka.mount@epa.state.oh.us, or;
Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water
Attention: 303D comments
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216-1049.

All comments must be received by February 25, 2008. After considering comments, Ohio EPA will submit a final document to U.S. EPA for approval by April 1, 2008.

To access the report and more detailed information about any local watershed visit: www.epa.state.oh.us, and click on the words “Integrated Report” in the public comments table.

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.