United States
                       Environmental Protection
                   Office of Water
       EPA 840-N-00-002
       Fall 2000
     »EPA  Watershed  Events
                         A Bulletin on Sustaining Water Resources and Ecosystems
 In This Issue...

 This issue of Watershed Events
 features stories from 6 of the 13
 Regional Watershed Roundtables.
 These Roundtables are the building
 blocks for the National Watershed
 Forum to be held this summer in
 Arlington, Virginia.
 On The Inside...
 Watershed Roundtables

 Roundtables                  •..
 as Building Blocks................................1
 The Northeast	...........,...;2
 The Southeast.......	,	................5
 Eastern Coal Region....................6
 California.........	7
 Alaska	:..................„,.... .......8
 Rocky Mountain......................10

Proposed Wetlands Rule ............. 11
Unified Federal Policy...............;.. 12
Lands Legacy..............	 12
GirlScouts ......,„	 13
Action Plan to
Address "Dead Zone"......,....:....,..16

New/Resources....................... 14
Events	I...............;...; 15
  Regional Watershed  Roundtables:
  Building  Blocks for the  National
  Watershed  Forum
 by Christine Lewicki,
 Environmental Protection Agency
    A  11 across the country, diverse
   /jk watershed interests are gather-
 A.  Adng at regional watershed
_jcoundtables to identify innovative
 opportunities to improve local water-
 shed protection and restoration efforts.
 In this issue of Watershed Events, the
 conveners of 6 of the 13 roundtables
 will share their experiences from these
 exciting regional dialogues.
 Using seed money provided by several
 federal agencies, the conveners of the
 Roundtables assembled diverse
 watershed stakeholders throughout
 their regions to deliberate on the
 challenges facing today's watershed
 practitioners. Each of these
 roundtables is unique. Yet they share
 similarities, including the following:
 •  Enhancing communication among
   local watershed interests such as
   business,  agriculture, tribes, civic
   organizations, and local, state, and
   federal government agencies to
   better protect, manage, and restore
   the region's watersheds.

 •  Providing democratic  forums for
   stakeholder discussions of barriers
   to and innovative solutions for
   watershed management.
 • Providing peer-to-peer learning
  opportunities to help stakeholders
  acquire the best solutions.

 The experience and findings of the
 roundtables will serve as building
 blocks for the National Watershed
 Forum, which is being convened by
 the Meridian Institute from June 27 to
 July 1,2001, in Arlington, Virginia.
 Recommendations from the
 Roundtables will help to shape the
 National Watershed Forum so that it
 meets the needs of the broad array of
 stakeholders involved in collaborative
 watershed protection and restoration
 efforts throughout the nation. The
 Forum will be a highly interactive
 event.  Local, state, tribal, and regional
 leaders will gather to debate the future
 of watershed management and the
 efforts and partnerships needed to
 support and sustain community-based
 watershed protection efforts.
 Government alone cannot restore and
protect the nation's aquatic resources.
Citizens across the country recognize
this and are seeking collaborative
partnerships to make further improve-
ments in the condition of the aquatic
resources in their local communities.

     See Roundtables, page 2

	Roundtables, from page 1	

Both the Roundtables and the National
Watershed Forum provide valuable
processes for democratic deliberation
among these diverse watershed
interests. By advancing the discussion
of future directions for watershed
management, the Forum will hopefully
inspire innovative ideas that will help
sustain our watersheds into the next
century and beyond.

The convener of the Forum, the
Meridian Institute, specializes in the
design and facilitation of multi-party
dialogues, partnership development,
strategic planning, and advancing the
use of collaborative processes.
                                      Financial support for the National
                                       Watershed Forum has been provided by
                                      the Environmental Protection Agency,
                                      Department of Commerce, Department
                                      of Interior, Department of Transporta-
                                      tion, Army Corps of Engineers,
                                      Department of Agriculture, Tennessee
                                       Valley Authority, and the Federal
                                      Emergency Management Agency.
                                   The  13 Watershed Roundtables

      I.   Pacific Northwest

      II.  California

      III.  Intermountain

      IV. Heartland

      V.  Rocky Mountain

      VI. South Central

      VII. Great Lakes
       VIII. MidAtfantic
IX.  Northeast
                 >;_   '

X.  Southeast ~~	__   f

XI.  Alaska  '"'

XII. Eastern Coal Region

XIII. Upper Mississippi

Washington State University's ;
Center for Sustainable §gricullyre
Don Nelson (509) 335-f>922  ^

Watershed Management ppyncil
Sari Sommerstranrr     '"-- ** ,'r
(510) 273-9066          \:....".'  :
 USDA Forest Service
 Jack Blackwell-Regional Forester
 Intermountain  Region
 Leann Bflnap (801)" 625-5156 -----

 Groundwater foundation
 Susan Seacrest (800) 858-4844
- Montana Watercourse
 Mary Ellen Wolfe (406) 994-1910
                                --,.„- . I

                                                                       September 13-14, 2000 in Spokane
                                                                       September 6-7, 2000 in Portland
                                                                       October 3-4, 2000 in Boise

                                                                       September 1, 1999 in Davis
                                                                       November 15,1999 in Davis
                                                                       February 2, 2000 in Davis
                                                                       May 17, 2000 in Davis

                                                                       October 16-17, 2000
                                                                       Salt Lake  City, Utah
                                -;LEAF Alliance,
 Conservation Technology  ~ :
 Information Center
 Lyn Kirsehner (765) 494-9555 "
   "I-  J* '   ,   '"V         (k    \
 Frost Valley YMCA      r%
 Carol O'Beirne (845) 985-2291  ext. 201
   "la  i  I     __f      9^  ftit&m^ ""
 Rivef Network   "  — •
 Pat M¥n<^0§)' 364-2550 ................. "
                                          .•. -
                                       December 2000, Kansas
                                       September' 8-9, 2000, Missouri
                                       September; 24-26, 2000, Nebraska
                                       December 2000, Iowa
                                       May 15-17, 2000
                                       Bqzeman, Montana

                                       September 6-7, 2006
                                       "Dallas; Texas

                                       May 9-11, 2000        \
                                       October 25-27  2000
                                       Claryville, New York
                                          '-<_,*      Sj
                                       1997 and 1998  f"
                                       Winter 2000  *%.—*".-
                                                 J Valley Authority
                                        Christine Olsenius  (410),849-2975
                                        Nature Conserv|r]cy-AlaskaiChap1:er
                                        Paul Jackson |9B7) 276-31 3'l"J^-"->"!

                                        Canaahiyal|.ey -institute
                                        Kiena SrMff'(800) 922-3§P:l
                                        National Audubon Society
                                        Dan McGuiness (651) 290-1695
                                       August 1 9%i3, AtFgustll9,§9,;'
                                       August 24^^2000 in Bgnjingham

                                       February 10, 2000 in Anchorage
                                       October/November 2000 in Anchorage

                                       June 6-8, 2000
                                       Shepardstown, West Virgina

                                       September 15-17, 2000
                                       Sinsinawa, Wisconsin

Fa)) 2000
         Watershed Events
                                                                                                        Page 3
  Watershed Events
  Patty Scott
  Editor, U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency

  This Issue's Contributors
  Christine Lewicki,  Environmental
   Protection Agency
  Pat Munos,  River Network
  Christine Olsenius, Tennessee :".•
   Valley Authority, Program
 Janie French, Canaan Valley  ;
 Sari Sommarstrom, Watershed
   Management Council
 Paul G.Jackson,  The Nature:
   Conservancy of Alaska
 Mary Ellen Wolfe, Montana Water-
   course         /   •:•'
 Watershed Events provides updated
 and timely information to: profession-
 als and others interested in the
 development and implementation of
 the watershed approach and in
 achieving watershed goals.  The:
 watershed approach focuses on
 mitigating the" primary threats to
 ecosystem and human health and
 involving stakeholders to take action',
 in an integrated, holistic manned
 Please direct any questions or
 comments to:

            U.S. EPA    :
     Ariel.Rios Building (4501F)
  1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC  20460
         (202) 260-1956 ;  U :

 To be added to the  Watershed :
 Events mailing list, send your name
 and address to:

         Melissa DeSantis
         Tetratech, Inc.   :
   10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
        Fairfax, VA 22030 '.

 In the last issue, a  photograph was
 incorrectly attributed to Dave Davis:
 The photo credit belongs to the U.S.
     Fish and Wildlife Service.
 Integrating Growth
 Management and Water-
 shed Management Emerge
 as Priorities for the North-
 eastWatershed Roundtable

 by Pat Munoz, River Network
    In late 1996, a number of nonprofit
    river and watershed organizations
    in New England and New York
 approached the New England Federal
 Partners for Natural Resources with
 a proposal to work together to hold
 the first Northeast Watershed Round-
 table.  The purpose of that first
 gathering was to bring nonprofits
 together with federal and state agency
 personnel for a dialogue about how to
 protect, manage, and  restore water-
 sheds in the Northeast. A planning
 committee, consisting of nonprofits
 and federal and state government
 personnel, assembled the program and
 recruited participants.
 "The logic of the watershed focus is
 compelling and is not going to go away.
 Butthe challenge of making it work,
 from the governance standpoint and
 from the agency/citizen perspective, is
 going to demand some of our best
 thinking, ingenuity, and innovations-
 along with a great deal of patience."

          Ted Smith, Henry P. Kendall

 The first Roundtable was held in July
 1997 at the Northfield-Mt. Hermon
 Campus in western Massachusetts.
More than 150 people attended the 2-
 day event, and much excitement was
generated by the lively discussions of
six key issues: water quality, in-stream
flow, habitat restoration, watershed
information, riparian buffers, and
watershed planning. Participants
produced lists of short- and long-term
actions to help solve problems or
 improve existing conditions in the

 The second Roundtable, held in July
 1998, took up where the first left off,
 focusing on creating a prioritized list of
 recommended actions.  At the top of
 the list was integrating growth manage-
 ment policies, tools, and techniques
 with watershed planning; next was
 developing a watershed message for
 the region; third was protecting and
 restoring riparian areas; and fourth,
 critical to all of the others, was
 strengthening watershed organizations
 by building capacity at the local level
 and increasing available resources.

 Where energy and resources existed,
 working groups were formed and their
 accomplishments have been significant.
 They have:

 •  Created a Northeast watershed
   listserve with 350 subscribers as a
   tool for communicating items of
   interest to the entire watershed
   community in the northeast.

 •  Produced and distributed a funding
   directory for watershed groups in
   the Northeast.

 •  Conducted Fundraising Clinics.

 •  Hosted  an In-Stream Flow Work-
   shop for the New England states.

 •  Produced and distributed a bro-
   chure summarizing the recommen-
   dations  of the Roundtables for key
   decision-makers, funders, and

 The Roundtable has developed a
 structure consisting of an appointed
 executive committee and a steering
 committee that is open to anyone.
 Because of the high priority accorded
 to growth management, the executive
 committee is beginning to plan a third
 Roundtable meeting for spring/summer
 2001 that will focus on integrating
 growth management and watershed

	See Northeast, page 4

Page 4
     Watershed Events
                                                                                                         Fall 2000
        Northeast, from page 3
The members of the Northeast Water-
shed Roundtable have learned some
significant lessons:
• Keeping down or subsidizing the cost
  of events like the Roundtables
  encourages nonprofit participation.
• Participation in the Roundtables is a
  reflection of the organizing commit-
  tee-we need to work harder to
  involve local government and
  corporations by including them in the
  organizing phase.
• Collaboration is time-consuming-
  participants must be prepared to
spend many hours building trust
and respect.

Collaboration requires resources.
Without financial assistance from
EPA, the National Park Service,
Northeast Utilities, and other
participants, we would have been
unable to maintain momentum.

Tracking/publicizing our tangible
achievements is important—we
keep a running list of accomplish-
ments, which we circulate fre-
It is important to have stable, senior
representation on the governing
body of the collaborative.
The Northeast Watershed Roundtable is
meeting its goal of promoting integrated
action through the many partnerships
that have been formed as a result of our
collaboration. We hope to continue to
expand the dialogue with Roundtable
in. Through our activities,  and those of
many others, it is becoming clear to
people across New England that
organizing restoration and protection
efforts around watersheds makes a
great deal of sense.
For more information, contact Pat
Munoz, (202)364-2550, e-mail:
pmunoz@rivernerwork.org or see the
web site: www.rivernetwork.org.
     Northeast Watershed Roundtable High Priority Actions

     Link Growth Management and Watershed Planning
     •  Integrate growth management policies, tools, and techniques with watershed planning so that growth manage-
         ment becomes a key land use component of watershed plan implementation.
     Promote the Watershed Approach Through Outreach and Increased Funding
     •  Develop a watershed(s) message for the region in conjunction with marketing research.                ...._.	
     •  Create a regional working group focused on increased funding and resources for watershed work in New
     •  Create a keyed regional directory  of funding sources, tips for accessing them, and training on their use.
     •  Identify and evaluate existing watershed management initiatives and distribute this information broadly.
     Protect Riparian Buffers
     •  Enhance local capacity to understand the benefits of riparian buffers.
     •  Evaluate and amend state and local policies and  programs to increase their effectiveness for protecting riparian
     Build Capacity at the Local Level and Support Local Stewardship
     •  Ensure that the knowledge of key activities is accessible to local stewardship organizations by improving existing
         or creating new mechanisms among stakeholders.
     •  Provide support and resources at the local level via regional planning agencies, intermunicipal compacts,
         watershed associations, etc., on issues, including but not limited to, local growth management based on water-
         carrying capacity, wastewater, and drinking water.
     •  Develop a support system for local volunteer monitoring groups.
     •  Increase meaningful opportunities for local groups and volunteers to participate in stewardship.
     •  Build and/or strengthen the capacity for effective  interaction among stakeholders.
     Protect In-Stream Flow
     •  Hold a regional conference on in-stream flow protection, science, and a policy to educate and improve regula-
         tory policy.
     •  Create and implement an outreach strategy to  provide appropriate in-stream flow information to public/private
         nonprofit agencies and organizations.
     Conduct Watershed Assessment and  Data Management
     •   Make data accessible, locally relevant, and credible.
     •   Establish  a Watershed Data Task Force to develop a system to ensure comparability among assessments.
     •   Provide data, technical assistance, and financial  assistance to enable local decision-makers to protect and
          restore water quality.
     •   Develop, adopt, and apply data standards and  qualify the data.
     Protect and Restore Habitat
     •   Develop a partnership approach to  identification  of potential restoration sites.
     •   Protect watershed wetlands, including vernal pools and salt marshes.

  Fa)) 2000
        Watershed Events
  Southeast Watershed Forum
  Roundtable  Engages City-
  County Officials

  by Christine Olsenius, Program
  Consultant, Tennessee Valley Authority
        The Alabama Department of
        hosted the third Southeast
  Roundtable in Birmingham on August
  24-25,2000. Approximately 185
  leaders from industry, agriculture,
  municipalities, regionalplanning
  councils, environmental and conserva-
  tion groups, river and watershed
  organizations, and academic institutions
  met with state and federal agency
  representatives to discuss ways to
  improve the protection and restoration
  of watersheds in their states and
 throughout the region. For the first
 time, 35 elected and appointed officials
 from counties and cities in nine states
 joined in the discussions. The Confer-
 ence of Southern County Associations,
-the National Association of Counties,
 and the International City/County
 Management Association were instru-
 mental in making it possible for these
 officials to actively participate.
 Lindsay Thomas, President of the
 Georgia Chamber of Commerce and
 Federal Commissioner of the ACT-
 ACF River Basin Compacts, kicked off
 the Southeast Watershed Forum
 Roundtable 2000 with a warning that
 the tri-state water war among Alabama,
 Georgia, and Florida is just a portent of
 greater regional competition for high
 quality water in the rapidly developing
 South. To help attendees better address
 issues  such as growth, development,
 and urban sprawl, which are stressing
 water supplies and water quality across
 the Southeast, the Roundtable provided
 specialty training workshops, success
 stories, and small group discussions on
 key resource issues and changing
 The Roundtable provided training on
 watershed protection tools and ideas on
 how to implement them back home.

 "Local governments and officials have
often felt like the movie, 'Home Alone.'
We are often forgotten with things
proceeding without ourparticipation,
which in the end, causes lots of back-
tracking and redoing the trip. Butweare
changing that here today."
             Jim Campbell, President
       Conference of Southern County
  Most of the Southeast Watershed Forum Roundtable was spent in small breakout
  discussions. Here the Alabama delegation discusses state priorities for watershed
  protection.  The second day was devoted to discussions on TMDLs, CAFOs and
  buffers, greenways, and mitigation banking.
 For example, Dr. Richard Whisnant
 from the Environmental Finance Center
 at the University of North Carolina-
 Chapel Hill provided a training work-
 shop for city and county officials on
 Financing Mechanisms for Watershed
 Planning and Protection. Tom
 Schueler, Executive Director of the
 Center for Watershed Protection,
 offered a workshop on Rapid Water-
 shed Planning, Site Design and
 Stormwater Management. Pat Munoz
 with River Network provided a half-
 day Fundraising Workshop for
 Watershed Associations.
 Success Stories
 Success stories from local communi-
 ties, industries, agencies, and water-
 shed groups around the Southeast
 provided a positive picture of people
 "doing it right," and saving money in
 the process.  "Clean water is good
 business," stated Carla Dupuy from
 Crescent Resources, Inc., a residential
 development company. Crescent
 Resources has committed to establish-
 ing permanent conservation easements
 on all the property they own, nearly
 200 miles of streams in North and
 South Carolina. This buffer zone will
 protect water quality from sedimenta-
 tion and runoff, thus ensuring a high
 quality community for the new
 homeowners. Cindy Angelelli from
 Duke Power discussed an industry-led
 initiative to support restoration efforts
 nationwide through the National
 Corporate Wetlands Restoration
 Facilitated Dialogue
 Facilitated discussions resulted in state-
 wide commitments to action. The
 delegation from Tennessee, for
 example, committed to developing new
 incentives for streamside  management
 zones, encouraging environmentally
 friendly zoning ordinances, and
providing greater education of local
 officials on watershed issues.
While every state had specific issues of
their own, seven of the nine delegations

       See Southeast, page 9

       Watershed Events
                                                                                                       Fall 2000
Watershed Groups Speak
Up at Eastern Coal Region

by Janie French, Canaan Valley
      Funding, partnerships, enforce-
      ment, and support by public
      agencies are the keys to success-
ful watershed restoration efforts,
according to grass roots organizations
gathered at the Eastern Coal Region
Restoration Roundtable.  Local
stakeholders from across a 13-state
area attended this historic event, the
first of its kind to focus on a single
issue: coal mine drainage.
From June 6-8,2000, a diverse group
of representatives throughout the
eastern coal region came together at the
National Conservation Training Center
in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, to
identify the most critical issues
challenging local watershed efforts.
The Roundtable solicited feedback on
successes and barriers facing local
groups working to restore watersheds
 impacted by abandoned coal mines.
The Roundtable culminated in an
 informational sharing session on Capitol
Hill, where recommendations were
presented to federal and legislative
officials.  Eighteen representatives from
Alabama, Pennsylvania, Indiana,
 Tennessee, and other coal states spoke
 with a unified voice to decision-makers
 on strategies and recommendations
 generated over the 2 1/2-day session.
 Watershed groups recognized the
 importance of reauthorizing the
 Abandoned Mine Land (AML) trust
 fund, which expires in 2004 and
 provides  much of the Office of
 Surface Mining (OSM) and State AML
 program funds.  In addition, the groups
 urged more flexibility with EPA Section
 319 nonpoint source grants. It was
 noted that some states exclude the use
 of funds for administrative expenses,
"Acid mine drainage is both the most
significant environmental problem in
Coal Country and the most emblematic
as well. Orange streams and bony
piles are the remnants of pre-regulatory
coal mining, a legacy of environmental
devastation and economic abandon-
mentthat can be successfully ad-
dressed by those thatlive with its
                     Dr. Allan Comp,
              Office of Surface Mining

such as the funding of watershed
coordinators. Facilitating partnerships
that include all stakeholders, including
the mining industry, to create win-win
situations was also cited as a priority.
Further, groups recognized the
importance of using comprehensive
watershed approaches to identify issues
of concern for all stakeholder groups.
Government streamlining to include
"one-stop-shopping" via the Internet
and the establishment of interagency
technical centers was also recom-
mended. Utilizing the Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service (NRCS)
for engineering services and EPA and
OSM for construction dollars was
given as an example of how restoration
activities could be coordinated and
integrated. Finally, groups expressed
the need for consistency among states
in the enforcement of the Clean Water
Act. Both EPA and OSM were urged
to strengthen oversight of state
enforcement agencies in applying
federal law. A special briefing on
Capitol Hill, with an information
exchange among agency staff, elected
officials, and Roundtable participants,
concluded the event.
Dr. Allan Comp, a Roundtable partici-
pant with the Office of Surface Mining,
reflected that "acid mine drainage is
both the most significant environmental
 problem in Coal Country and the most
 emblematic as well.  Orange streams
and bony piles are the remnants of pre-
regulatory coal mining, a legacy of
environmental devastation and eco-
nomic abandonment that can be
successfully addressed by those that
live with its consequences."  Water-
shed groups in the coal mining states
and the agencies with whom they
partner recognize that they are address-
ing not just the environmental legacy of
abandoned mine drainage, but the social
and economic blight left in the wake of
World War II expansion, massive job
losses in the 1950s and after, and a
contemporary watershed environment
that leaves too many people feeling
helpless or powerless. Those who
attended the Roundtable feel that their
recommendations are important for
improving the environment as well as
revitalizing the economy in the region.

On July 6th, just one month after the
Roundtable, Barry Thacker, a Round-
table participant from the Coal Creek
Watershed Foundation in Tennessee,
had the opportunity to speak to the   —
Democratic National Platform Commit-
tee in St. Louis, Missouri. Thacker's
message echoed recommendations put
forth at the Roundtable. "If you are
truly to improve water quality," he said,
"you have to  do it as  a component of
improving the quality of life of those
who live in the watershed." Thacker
also sent a copy of his testimony to
Texas Gov. George W. Bush urging
him to consider the recommendations
from the Roundtable  for his party's

 Canaan Valley  Institute, which con-
vened the Roundtable, is a non-profit,
non-advocacy organization working
 with watershed groups to foster
 decision-making at the local level.

 For more information, contact Janie
 French,  Canaan Valley Institute, (814)
 768-9584, e-mail: jfcvi@uplink.net.

        Watershed  Events
                                                                                                       Page 7
 The California Watershed
 Management Forums:
 12 Steps to Watershed

 by Sari Sommarstrom, President, Water-
 shed Management Council

          Wth 100 million acres and 35
          nillionpeople, California
          lecided to take up the
 challenge of forming its own water-
 shed "roundtable."  Over the past year,
 "shedheads" from around the state
 gathered for a series of four, one-day
 forums, sponsored by the Watershed
 Management Council (WMC), a
 nonprofit educational organization
 dedicated to advancing the art and
 science of watershed management.
 State and federal agencies and a myriad
 of organizations involved with water-
 shed restoration and management
 efforts throughout California agreed
 that the time was ripe for a statewide
 The purpose of the forums was to
 provide a neutral setting where ideas,
 opportunities, and needs for watershed
 management across the state could be
 discussed openly. Initially, the focus
 was on state and local relationships, as
 mat role was considered sufficiently
 complex. When EPA and the National
 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
 tion (NOAA) joined as co-sponsors and
 financial  contributors, however, the
 goals were expanded to include an
 examination of the federal role.
 Participation Process
 Participation was by invitation only and
 limited in number to provide for
 optimum discussion and exchange of
perspectives. Invitations were targeted
for each of the state's 10 major river
basins, including the Sacramento,
North Coast, San Francisco Bay, and
Los Angeles. One hundred and thirty-
 "The best parts of the forums were
 hearing other's viewpoints, meeting
 new people, and the creative approach
 to each forum (enjoyable!)."
                      Diane Gaumer,
        Executive Director, Deer Creek
 eight people attended at least one of the
 four forums, representing state
 agencies, the California State legisla-
 ture, local governments, local water-
 shed groups, land and water manage-
 ment agencies, environmental groups,
 federal agencies, and universities.
 Attendance at each of the four forums
 ranged from 45 to 77. Located near the
 state capital of Sacramento, the
 University of California campus at
 Davis provided an ideal setting.

 Forums #1 and #2: "Identifying the
 Potential" and the "Expectations
 of Governance"
 Out-of-state speakers from  Massachu-
 setts, Oregon, and Washington kicked
 off the opening dialogue on September
 1, 1999, with presentations about their
 innovative state-local watershed
 programs. They were followed by two
 experts who presented more regional
 and national perspectives. From that
 very energizing begin-
 ning, the second forum,
 held on November 15,
 1999, moved on to
 explore the various in-
 state views and expecta-
 tions of state and local
 governance of water-
 shed management
programs.  Four panels
of diverse speakers
responded to specific
questions related to
accountability, gover-
nance structure and
flexibility, incentives,
and technical support.
              Forums #3 and #4: "Shaping a
              Robust, Collaborative Frame-
              work" and "Filling In the
              During the third forum, held on
              February 2, 2000, participants really
              started to listen to one another.
              Attendees were divided into four
              groups and rotated round-robin style
              among four subtopic sessions,
              deliberating on how best to create a
              "robust,"collaborative framework
              for watershed management in
              California. Finally, a questionnaire
              synthesizing comments made at the
              three forums was prepared and sent
              out to all participants to rank their
              level of agreement. Results were
              presented and discussed at the
              fourth and final forum, held on
              May 17, 2000, where there appeared
              to be convergence of agreement on
              about one-third of the 182 state-
              ments and strong disagreement on
              another third.
              Participants agreed to move forward
              where consensus existed. The
              result— "12 Steps to Watershed
              Recovery in California"— was
              drafted and fleshed out (see box

                  See California, page 9
Sbcpf the 12 Key Steps Identified by
the California  Roundtable:
    Form a statewide network of local
    watershed group.  ;      ,.   -
    Coordinate Agency watershed work
    officially through formal agree-
    ments.                  .'".  ,  •"-.     ".
    Obtain legislative-endorsement of
    the state's commitments.
    Seek endorsement by the Governor
    for the state's commitment.
    Prepare handbooks and guidelines
    for watershed assessment arid
    planning.                     ;     .

     Watershed Events
                                                                                                      Fall 2000
Roundtable—A Community-
Based Approach to
Sustainability in the Great
By Paul G. Jackson, The Nature
Conservancy of Alaska
        On February 10, 2000, The
        Nature Conservancy (TNC) of
        Alaska hosted the Alaska
Watershed Roundtable at the Campbell
Creek Science Center.  Forty partici-
pants representing local watershed
efforts throughout Alaska, state and
federal agencies, academia, tribes, and
conservation organizations were
present to discuss the challenges of
starting, developing, and sustaining
watershed planning and management
efforts in Alaska. The principal
problems identified and discussed
included lessening the difficulty in
tapping into  and sustaining funding on a
consistent basis; educating their
respective public audiences about
watershed issues; getting necessary
and consistent technical assistance,
information, and training; and establish-
ing productive and understanding
relationships with agencies. At the end
of the Roundtable, participants con-
cluded that a new coordinated and
committed statewide effort—an Alaska
Watershed Cooperative (AWC)—was
needed to address and solve these
After lengthy discussions, the
Roundtable  participants transformed
challenges into possible solutions.  The
Roundtable  produced the following
conclusions and recommendations,
which were then presented to the
Watershed Summit of federal and state
agency leaders on the  following day,
February 11,2000.
 • State and federal agencies need to
   take the time to sit down and
   understand the needs of local
   efforts and work closely with them
   to meet those needs.
There especially needs to be a
better working relationship between
agencies and tribes on watershed

There should be a statewide
coordinated effort to meet the
needs of local watershed planning
and management efforts.

A core-planning group should be
formed to design and develop a
centralized entity, as well as
determine how it should be funded
and formalized. The entity could
provide a number of coordinated or
independent functions and services,
including the following:

•  Offer short courses on water-
    shed concepts and sustainability.
•  Assist with the development,
    writing, and implementation of
    watershed plans.
•  Assist with GIS development,
    monitoring programs, and other
    technical services.
•  Act as a general information
•  Act as a point of contact/access
    to state/federal agencies for
•  Act as a conduit for grant/
    funding information and grant/
    funding writing courses.
•  Sponsor/facilitate state confer-
    ences, forums, and discussions^
    such as the Roundtable, on
    watershed and sustainability
                                    •  There needs to be a formal com-
                                      mitment of resources and services
                                      to such an entity, so it can leverage
                                      support from other funding

                                    The Roundtable participants further
                                    explored how a coordinated, statewide
                                    effort—a new Alaska Watershed
                                    Cooperative (AWC)—could address
                                    identified barriers and better meet the
                                    needs of local watershed efforts.
                                    A core-planning group made up to  15
                                    individuals representing abroad
                                    spectrum of watershed interests and
                                    efforts from across the state has been
                                    formed. Over the next year, the group
                                    will attend facilitated meetings to design
                                    the Alaska Watershed Cooperative
                                    (AWC), formalize its mission and
                                    structure, and develop a  3-year funding
                                    strategy. The strategic plan will be
                                    presented to a Joint Summit of senior
                                    agency leaders in late 2000 or early
                                    2001. The agencies will  be asked to
                                    provide support for the AWC.
                                    For more information, contact Paul
                                    Jackson, The Nature Conservancy,
                                    421 West 1st Ave., #200, Anchorage,
                                    AK 99501, (907) 276-3133.
•  Provide advice and input on state
    watershed policy, regulations
    and funding.

 Fall 2000
        Watershed Events
                            Page 9
 	Southeast, from page 5

 ranked as their first priority the need
 for better watershed protection, land-
 use planning, and zoning to address
 urban sprawl. Six of the nine delega-
 tions ranked as their second priority
 the need to better educate all elected
 officials, as well as all citizens, on the
 connection between declining water
 quality in the Southeast and urban
 sprawl, development, and changing
 land-use patterns. The third priority
 was the need for more funding to
 provide field staff, technical exper-
 tise, monitoring, inspections, and
 enforcement, as well as implementa-
 tion of TMDLs and support for local
 watershed initiatives.

 Specific recommendations  were
 made by participants to federal, state,
 and local agencies on how to imple-
 ment TMDLs more effectively, the
 complicated process  of assigning
 total maximum daily loads to a
 waterbody to ensure that it  attains
 water quality goals.

 Charles Adams, Regional Conserva-
 tionist for the United States Depart-
 ment of Agriculture's Natural
 Resource Conservation Service,
 presented the new Watershed
 Leadership Awards from the South-
 east Natural Resource Leaders
 Group, the regional directors of
 federal agencies. The Awards
recognize efforts that reflect inter-
 agency cooperation, innovation in
watershed protection,  and citizen

Jean Ann Moon, on behalf of the
Marshall County Retired Senior
Volunteer Program (RSVP), accepted
the Local Watershed Leadership
Award. The program's 100  volunteer
monitors have gathered the  most
extensive collection of water quality
data of any county in Alabama. The
Corporate Watershed Leadership
 Award went to Jenifer Christman
 with International Paper, for IP's
 15-mile conservation easement on
 the Wolf River in Mississippi. For
 their efforts in developing the Tampa
 Bay Estuary Program, Hillsborough,
 Pinellas, and Manatee Counties
 received the Community Watershed
 Award. The Special Projects Award
 went to the Eastern Band of the
 Cherokee Nation for their watershed
 restoration projects along the
 Oconaluftee and Ravens Fork Rivers.

 The Southeast Watershed Forum
 is a cooperative effort among
 agencies, industries, and organiza-
 tions to enhance local watershed
 initiatives by encouraging dialogue,
 communicating watershed informa-
 tion, providing training, and facili-
 tating public-private partnerships.
 The Forum has convened three
 Roundtables to date.  Feedback
from the first two Roundtables has
 helped shape national watershed
programs, increased agency aware-
 ness of local issues and concerns,
 and encouraged stronger local and
 regional partnerships.

 For more information, contact
 Christine Olsenius, Coordinator,
 Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101
Market Street, CST 17D-Chatta-
nooga, TN 37402, (410) 849-2975;
e-mail: cholsenius@aol.com.
                                              California, from page 7
"This Roundtable provides a valuable
service. It provides the 'NUT' that we all
need; more Networking, greater
Understanding and the opportunity to
overcome Turf."
         Ross King, Assistant Director
 Association County Commissioners of
 Lessons Learned
 1.  There should be such a thing as a
     "free lunch" time together as a
     valuable incentive and opportunity
     for diverse interests to communi-
     cate informally and to network in
     new ways.
 2.  Tackling state-local relationships
     was complex enough and more
     time was needed to adequately
     address the federal watershed
     management role, which is
     becoming increasingly compli-
     cated with new listings of endan-
     gered species and new TMDL
 3.   Participants must have a product
     to show for their involvement and
     a mutually comfortable strategy to
     continue to work on.
 4.   Translating new concepts that
     everyone agrees on into state
     action can still be problematic.
 5.   People  in a state as large and
     diverse as California can find
     commonality of ideas and prin-
     ciples for watershed management.
 A variety of public and private organi-
 zations contributed financially to make
 the forum series possible. Partners
 included the California Resources
 Agency, Californians and the Land,
 East Bay Municipal Utility District,
 For the Sake of the Salmon, U.C.
 Davis—Public Service Research
 Program, EPA,  NOAA, and the U.S.
 Forest Service. For local -watershed
 groups traveling a long distance, travel
 expenses were partially reimbursed
 when requested. Costs per forum
 ranged from $3,300 to $9,200, with
project management and much admin-
 istrative time donated by WMC.
 For more information, contact Sari
 Sommarstrom, Watershed Manage-

Page 10
       Watershed Events
                                                                                                      Fall 2000

        How successful is watershed
        coordination in the states of
        North and South Dakota,
Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and
Montana? For 7 months, a 6-state
Steering Committee telecommunicated
to plan the first Rocky Mountain
Watershed Coordinator's Roundtable,
where answers to this and other
questions were debated and discussed
by 60 participants. Historic Chico Hot
Springs Resort, just north of
Yellowstone National Park, provided a
relaxed and informal setting for the
May 15-17,2000, gathering of
watershed coordinators and state and
federal  agency staff.

Monthly conference calls and e-mail
were essential communication tools
for the  12-member Steering Commit-
tee that planned the event. Composed
of interested watershed coordinators
and agency representatives in the six
participating states of EPA Region 8,
the Steering Committee built a
Roundtable agenda to meet the needs
of watershed groups of diverse
character.  The Montana Water-
course, a statewide water education
program at Montana State University-
Bozeman, coordinated the effort with
funding support from the Department
of Interior and EPA.  Acting as
facilitator, the Montana Watercourse
drew from its prior experience,
having conducted a successful retreat
for Montana Watershed Coordinators
in the fall of 1999.

Each of the six participating states sent
three or more representatives to the
Roundtable, including local watershed
 coordinators and state watershed
 managers, who described the status of
 their respective state's watershed
 groups, brainstormed common needs,
and learned from the experiences of
neighboring states. Participants
learned that although their needs
clearly run the gamut from technical
assistance to funding to training to
public relations, these needs were, in
large degree, common to all. The
participants' collective priorities were
then identified: (1) long-term funding
for watershed group stability, (2) local
support for and participation in
watershed group activities, and (3) a
broadly shared, clearly defined purpose
and vision.

These three priority needs were shared
with federal agency representatives,
who were asked on the final day of the
gathering to describe the federal role
in addressing local watershed needs.
Through an informal roundtable
discussion, federal officials briefed
local participants on existing program
assistance, and they provided insights
into future opportunities. A general
Q&A session yielded some useful
suggestions.  For example, when
asked, "How can watershed groups
help federal agencies to increase
funding levels to support their ef-
forts?" the federal representatives
responded, "Tell your success stories,
generate products, and invest some
time and dollars in reporting your

Peter Lavigne, Program Director of
the Watershed Management Profes-
sional Program at Portland State
University, gave a provocative keynote
presentation,  Restorations, Quagmires,
 Watersheds and Consensus: Where Do
 We Go from Here?, which cast
watershed experience in the larger
global context, challenging participants
to continue to act locally, but never
lose sight of the bigger picture.

The meeting concluded with a discus-
 sion about the lessons learned from the
 Roundtable, the value of a Rocky
 Mountain communication network,
and the benefits of a continuing
interstate dialogue. All present agreed
that the Roundtable was an enriching
experience and that learning about the
work of other watershed practitioners
was especially valuable. Participants
from Utah and Colorado were particu-
larly interested in Montana's statewide
coordination and communication
network. It also became apparent that
watershed priorities in the Dakotas
differ considerably from those of the
Rocky Mountain states, where a
population boom is presently under
way. The Roundtable concluded with
a group decision to convene a small
Focus Group to develop a set of
recommendations for the National
Watershed Forum  in 2001. With
assistance from River Network, a
listserve was established to facilitate
ongoing communications among the
Roundtable participants.
 One fringe benefit of the Roundtable
 was the field trips, which gave some
 participants a chance to see the
 Yellowstone Watershed firsthand. A
 whitewater-rafting trip kicked off the
 conference for the more adventurous;
 and a tamer, but instructive raft tour,
 at the meeting's conclusion, was led
 by members of Montana Governor
 Marc Racicot's Upper Yellowstone
 River Taskforce.

 For more information, contact Mary
 Ellen Wolfe, Montana Watercourse,
 MSU, PO Box 170575, Bozeman, MT
 59717, (406) 994-1910 or e-mail:

                                               Watershed Events
                                                                 Page 11
Enhanced Protections of
Wetlands and Other
Waters of the United
States Under the Proposed
          Wrtlands provide a number of
          snvironmentally and
          :conomically important
 functions in watersheds,ys^h~aTSoocr~
 control, water quality,'rjrote,cjti0n-,-
 groundwater rechagge' gpewffing- areas r>
 for commerciajlyjmp^rtant fish, and
 wildlifeJiaKftat JSetMid^lQss and~-v.
 streamsiggradation can result~inJi-1j
 increased flooding and runoff^jausing
 harm to downstream coi
 property, pollution of rivers and
 streams, destruction of commerce
 fisheries, closures of shellfish beds,^"-.^	('
 degradation of drinking wkjer supplies,
 and loss of wildlife habitat, feeder
 Section 404 of the Clean Wat(hsAct
 (CWA), a permit must be obtainecf>w   ,
 before dredged or fill material may be   "-•
 discharged into wetlands and other
 "waters of the United States." This
 permit program ensures that the
 environmental impacts of proposed
 discharges are avoided and minimized to
 the extent possible, and that unavoidable
 impacts are mitigated or offset through
 activities were not consistently subject
 to environmental review under the
 Section 404 program even though
 waters of the United States, including
 wetlands, were destroyed or degraded.

 In 1993, in an effort to better protect
 wetlands from these practices, EPA
 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
 (Corps) issued a regulation (commonly
 referred to as the "Tulloch rule") to
 revise the definition of "discharge of
 dredged material" to clarify that any
>.redeposits of excavated materials
 incidental to these types of activities
 >are\subject to environmental reviews
      the CWA. In a 1998 court
        i, however, the Court found
                                        EutEbrity to regulafeisuc^etiyities if
                                       the Court's
                                       20,000 wetlan
                                       targeted jfor di
Proposed Revisions
On AusMIp, 2000>EPA and the
                             j~*r*,     _
wetlands restoration or other compe^snf. -»
tory mitigation activities.

However, by using specialized dredging
and disposal techniques such as
backhoes with welded buckets, and
placing excavated material directly on
uplands or in sealed containers so as to
avoid discharges of the excavated
material, sophisticated developers have
sought to convert wetlands without the
need to obtain a CWA Section 404
permit  As a result, some small volume
discharges associated  with mechanized
land clearing, ditching, channelization,
or other mechanized excavation
 was designed and conducted so as to
 result only in incidental fallback.

 "Today's proposal will allow us to go as
 far we can through administrative
 reforms to close this loophole and
 protect wetlands. The action we take
 today strengthens the protection of vital
 resources forfuture generations."

                 EPA Administrator

 Additional Protections for
 By clarifying what types of activities
 are likely to result in discharges that
 can be regulated,  the proposed rule
 offers better protection to tens of
 thousands of wetlands acres and
 hundreds of miles of streams consid-
 ered at risk. The resulting gap in
^environmental protection, however,
      hbe_cpmpletely rectified by
                     ^legislative fix
                 gultiflg-frorii the 1998
                                                                             More Information
                                                                             For general information on the pro-
                                                                             posed rule or wetlands, visit the EPA
                                                                             wetlands web site at www.epa.gov/
                                                                                iw/wetlands or contact the Wet-
         i.e'd^proposed regulation to-^
          losses by^claefytaggnj^:.- "- xiands Helpline at (703) 748-1304 or
scope of activities typically.^ubjeGlto^/  (800) 832-7828.
environmental review under the CWA.
Because mechanized excavation,
channelization, and other mechanized
ditch digging activities typically
produce more than incidental fallback
and result in a discharge of dredged
material, the proposal establishes a
rebuttable presumption that such
activities are subject to CWA Section
404 permitting requirements. This
rebuttable presumption of discharge
can be overcome if it is shown on a
case-by-case basis that the activity

Page 12
        Watershed Events
                                                                                                      Fall 2000
Unified Federal Policy on
Watershed Management

On October 18, a new Unified Federal
Polity'for a Watershed Approach to
Federal Land and Resource Manage-
ment (UFP) was announced. The new
policy seeks to protect and accelerate
the restoration of watersheds on federal
lands and is intended to promote the
adoption of a common federal agency
approach to managing watersheds on
federal lands.
The final policy was developed by an
interagency team composed of
representatives of five departments
(Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
Energy, and Interior) and three
agencies (Environmental Protection
Agency, Tennessee Valley Authority,
and Army Corps of Engineers).
Two hundred and forty-eight re-
sponses from 126 organizations and
122 individuals were received on the
draft policy, which was published in
the Federal Register in October.  The
majority of the comments supported
the goals and approach of the policy.
The UFP will serve as a framework for
better coordination among federal
agencies, states, tribes, private land-
owners, and interested stakeholders in
the management of federal lands and
resources using a watershed approach.
It will promote management on a
watershed basis to protect water
quality and the health of aquatic
ecosystems on federal lands.  The
federal agencies will strive to work in
close coordination with state, tribal,
and local government agencies; private
landowners; and stakeholders to
develop implementation plans that will
incorporate the goals of the policy and
build on current efforts, while recog-
nizing work already being accom-
plished by tribes, states, and local
communities. The policy contains  18
principal objectives that fall into the
following four major areas: (1) devel-
opment of common water assessment
procedures; (2) adoption of a water-
shed management approach;
(3) improved consistency and compli-
ance with federal, state, tribal, and
interstate water quality requirements;
and (4) enhanced collaboration with all
For more information on the UFP, visit
the Clean Water Action Plan web site
at www.cleanwater.gov.

Congress Agrees to Fund
"Lands Legacy"

At press time, Congress agreed to fund
President Clinton's Lands Legacy
conservation program as part of the
Interior Department spending bill for
Fiscal Year 2001. However, support-
ers of a more generous bill, the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act
(CARA), vowed to continue to push
for consideration of a broader mea-
sure. CARA sponsor Senator Mary
Landrieu (D-La.), who threatened to
hold up the Interior spending bill,
backed down only after receiving
assurances from Congressional leaders
that funding for coastal and wildlife
conservation programs would be
included in other appropriations bills.
The Interior bill (H.R. 4578) includes a
new 6-year Land Conservation,
Preservation and Infrastructure Im-
provement Trust Fund.  The fund,
financed by oil royalties, would provide
$1.6 billion in the first year, increasing
to a total of $2.4 billion in the sixth year,
to go toward conservation programs.
The trust fund would, however, be
subject to annual Interior and Com-
merce-Justice-State  appropriations.
The CARA bill (H.R. 701), on the other
hand, would have set aside $3 billion
each year for 15 years toward coastal,
wildlife, land acquisition, and other
conservation programs and guaranteed
the funding rather than making it subject
to annual appropriations.
Under the new trust fund, federal and
state sides of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund could receive up to
$540 million; state conservation programs
could garner $300 million; and urban
parks and forestry and historic preserva-
tion funds could get $160 million.
Another $400 million for coastal assis-
tance is expected to be included in the
Commerce-Justice-State bill

Estuary Restoration Bill in

At press time, a joint House/Senate
conference committee was working to
reconcile differences between House-
and Senate-passed measures aimed at
restoring estuary habitat.
S. 835, the Estuary Habitat and Chesa-
peake Bay Restoration Act, passed the
Senate this spring and the House last
month, but the bills have some funda-
mental differences.
The Senate passed S. 835 to authorize
the National Estuary Partnership Act,
but attached three other Senate bills,
which reauthorize the Long Island
Sound and Chesapeake Bay restoration
projects as well as the National Estuary
Program. When the House passed its
version last month, it added six other
bills, including H.R. 673 to improve
Florida Keys water quality; H.R. 2957
to restore Lake Pontcaartrain in.
Louisiana; H.R. 1106 for alternative
water sources; H.R. 2328 to reautho-
rize the clean lakes program; H.R.4104
to restore the Mississippi Sound; and
H.R. 3378 for cleanup of the Tijuana
estuary. The White House said the
president will reserve judgment on the
legislation until he sees the final version.

B.E.A.C.H. Bill Signed

On October 10, President Clinton
signed into law S. 522, the Beaches
Environmental Awareness and Coastal
Health Act of 2000 (B.E.A.C.H. bill),
sponsored by Senator Frank
Lautenberg (D-NJ). The B.E.A.C.H. bill
establishes consistent nationwide
standards for beach water quality
monitoring, testing, and notification.

 Fa)) 2000
        Watershed Events
 Water Drop Patch Project
 Gains in Popularity with
 Girl Scouts

A        unique partnership project
        between the Girl Scouts of the
        United States of America
 (GSUSA) and EPA's Office of
 Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, is
 quickly gaining in popularity. Since
 March of last year, more than 5,000
 Girl Scouts nationwide have earned
 Water Drop Patches.  And last fall, the
 NationalEnvironmental Education
 Training Foundation (NEETF) recog-
 nized the project by presenting a
 NationalEnvironmental Educa-
 tional Achievement Award to the
 Girl Scout Council  of the Nation's
 Capital, where the project was first
 championed by program specialist
 Karen Brown.

 Over the summer, a number of
 Girl Scout camps chose the Water
 Drop Patch Project as part of their
 Day Camp programs. At Camp
 Shantituck in Kentucky, led by
 Camp Program Director Susan
 Lange, Girl Scouts learned all
 about nonpoint source pollution.
 The girls conducted stream
 assessments, chemical testing, and
 biological monitoring of the two
 creeks that run through the camp.
 They sampled for nitrates,
 colifonn, dissolved  oxygen, and
 pH levels; used a topographic map
 to locate farms, water sewage
 treatment plants, and other
 potential sources of nonpoint pollution
 further upstream; and identified several
 types of macroinvertebrates.
 Now that the Girl Scouts have identi-
 fied the types of pollution, they are
 focusing on learning where the
pollutants enter their creeks and how
 they can help keep them clean, such as
providing buffers and community
 education. The Girl  Scouts will
continue to monitor quarterly and
report their findings to the Kentucky
Division of Water, which records then-
 data. Through a Clean Water Act
 319(h) grant provided to the Kentucky
 Waterways Alliance, the Girl Scouts
 received funding to cover their sup-
 plies. While at Camp Shantituck, all
 Brownie, Junior, and Cadettes campers
 received the Water Drop Patch. Senior
 GM Scouts assisted the younger girls
 with many of the activities.

 Troop Leader Patty Murphy's Brownie
 Troop Number 2260 in Hollis, Maine,
 learned all about the importance of
 watershed protection by doing the Water
 Drop Patch Project. But best of all, she
 said, was the discovery that protecting
 the environment can be fun. Among
many water-related activities, the
Brownies went on a stream walk, put up
a wall mural of water posters at their
school, and visited a wildlife refuge, a
hatchery, and a hydroelectric dam.

To help the GM Scouts get started, EPA
published a Water Drop Patch Project
booklet providing background informa-
tion on watersheds, nonpoint source
pollution, wetlands, and groundwater/
drinking water; a list of resources and
helpful web sites; and a glossary. The
booklet can be ordered for free by
calling EPA's National Service Center
for Environmental Publications at (800)
490-9198. Ask for EPA Publication
Number EPA-840-B-99-004 or down-
load it from the Internet at http://

Thanks to a Memorandum of Under-
standing, several federal agencies,
including EPA, are working coopera-
tively with GSUSA to provide conser-
vation and environmental education
programs for Girl Scouts under an
exciting project called "Linking Girls to
the Land." For additional information
on the Patch project or "Linking Girls
to the Land," contact Patty Scott, EPA,
1200 Pennysulvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-
1956, e-mail: scott.patricia@epa.gov.
   New  Students  and
      Teacher's  Page

   A new EPA web site is now
   available for students and
   teachers looking for infor-
   mation on water-related
   environmental education
   programs. The site high-
   lights some of EPA's best
   educational materials as
   well as links to resources
   by other Federal agencies,
   including outstanding
   materials available from the
   United States Geological
   Survey and the Department
   of Agriculture. Students and
   teachers can also use the
   site to find out about top-
   rated water curriculum by
   others. Be sure to visit
   education.html. Comments
   on the nevvsite can	
   be directed to:

Page 14
        Watershed Events
                                                                                                     Fall 2000
EnvfroScape© Introduces New
Watershed Kit
Individuals or small groups will have
fun creating their own painted plaster
watershed (and buildings) with a new
Make Your Own Watershed Kit.
Modeled after the award-winning,
hands-on EnviroScape© models used
internationally by schools and communi-
ties, EnviroScape ©'s Make Your Own
Watershed Kit supplements the popular
model by offering a creative base for
homework assignments or science
projects. Students will be able to
experiment with activities (in English
and Spanish) that help them learn how
to prevent water pollution.
The patented kit includes two plaster
molds, plaster, paint, paint brushes,
bridges, felt strips (for vegetation), and
instructions with activities. The 12-
inch-square watershed mold can be
For more information, contact
EnviroScape©, c/o JT&A, 14524-F
Lee Road, Chantilly, VA20151, (703)
631-8810 ext.10, fax: (703) 631-6558,
or see the web site  at
Urban Stream Restoration Video
A new video offers a tour of six urban
stream restoration sites, led by Ann
Riley, a nationally recognized hydrolo-
gist, stream restoration professional,
and executive director of the Water-
ways Restoration Institute in Berkeley,
California. The video provides informa-
tion on principles of stream restoration,
community involvement, and project
financing. It is recommended for
anyone interested in ecological urban
stream and neighborhood restoration.
For more information, visit the web site
at wvw.urbanstrearnrestoration.com.
NRDC Issues New Report on
 Stormwater runoff is a serious threat to
 our nation's waters. Forty percent of
our nation's surveyed waterways are
imparted; many because of stormwater
pollution. While the impacts are signifi-
cant, the problems are not intractable.
Increasingly, communities are imple-
menting stormwater control strategies
and realizing the environmental, eco-
nomic, and social benefits of preventing
runoff pollution, often without any
mandate. In a recent report entitled
StormwaterStrategies: Community
Responses to Runoff Pollution, the
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) identifies numerous tools and
approaches already in use that control or
prevent polluted stormwater runoff. The
report highlights more than 150 examples
of environmentally effective and eco-
nomically advantageous stormwater
strategies being employed by municipali-
ties,  developers, and community organi-
zations in a variety of settings across the
country. Stormwater Strategies shows
that when motivated, local governments
are able to develop strong, cost-effective
programs to fight this problem.
NRDC is working with local and regional
organizations to bring this information to
community leaders and interested citizens
and is available to make presentations at
meetings, workshops, or events. The
target audience includes elected and
appointed government officials, members
of the development community, profes-
sional organizations, citizen advisory
committees, conservation organizations,
watershed groups, and the public at
large. NRDC's stormwater outreach
provides a unique opportunity to learn
about proven strategies that will help
meet federal Phase II stormwater pro-
gram and other watershed requirements.
For  additional information, contact
George Aponte Clarke, (212) 727-4413,
e-mail: gaclarke@nrdc.org. Stormwater
Strategies is available through NRDC's
publications department (212-727-4486)
 for $14.00 plus S&H or on the web at
www.nrdc.org (search for stormwater).
Tribal Wetland Program Highlights
A new publication, Tribal Wetland
Program Highlights, represents a
milestone in EPA's ongoing effort to
support the development of compre-
hensive tribal wetland programs. Eleven
case studies are presented which
highlight the experiences of tribal
organizations and feature varying
components of tribal programs,
including tools and strategies currently
employed to protect  and restore
wetlands and watersheds.  These case
studies are presented so that tribes, as
well as state and local governments,
can learn from the experience of others.
Copies of the publication can be
ordered from the Wetlands Helpline by
calling 1-800-832-7828 or faxing a
request to 703-748-1308. The publica-
tion will  soon be on the OWOW
website at  www.epa.gov/owow/
       Protection (CBEP)
          News ON-LINE

   CBEP News On-Line (CNO) is a
   periodic electronic information
   bulletin from EPA's Office of
   Policy, Economics and Innova-
   tion. Story suggestions, an-
   nouncements and information
   for CNO may be sent to the
   editor, Jerry Filbin, at
   filbin.gerald@epa.gov. To be
   added to the distribution list,
   contact the editor at the above
   e-mail address. Past issues of
   CNO can be found  at

Fall 2000
        Watershed Events
                           Page 15

 13-15   Asking the Right Questions:
         Evaluating the Impact of
         Groundwater Education,
         Nebraska City, NE. Sponsored
         by The Groundwater Founda-
         tion. Contact Cindy Kreifels at
 27-30   Managing Watersheds in the
         New Century, Monterey, CA.
         Sponsored by the Watershed
         Management Council, PSRP
         UC Davis, One Shields Ave.,
         Davis,CA95616.Phone: (510)
         273-9066; e-mail:
         mc@watershed.org; web site:

 17-19   California Farm Conference,
         Santa Rosa, CA. Contact
         Marcie Rosenzweig at (530)
 :        fullcircle@jps.net; web site:  :
 27—28  EECO 2000—Environment,
         Toronto, ON, Canada. EECO
         2000 will profile corporations
         that have developed imagina-
         tive initiatives, innovative
         programs, and improved
         processes to government
         policy makers, clients, competi-
         tors, investors, and the general
         public. Contact BreeStanlake,
         Globe Foundation of Canada,
         Vancouver, BC V6E 3. Phone:
         info@eeco.apfhet.org; web
         site: wWW.eeco2000.com
 30      Assessing and Managing
        Mercury from Historic and
         Current Mining Activities, San
        Francisco, CA. Contact Alina
30-Dec. 2 Workshop—Promoting
        Participation  in Community
        Development, Knoxville,TN.
        Sponsored by the University of
        Tennessee. Visit the web site:
January 2001

7—9     Integrated Decision-Making for
        Watershed Management
        Symposium, 4-H Center,Chevy
        Chase, MD. Visit the web site:
13-14   Media Skills Workshop,
        Knoxville,TN. Sponsored by
        AlabamaRivers Alliance, Clean
        Water Network and others.
        Contact Catherine Sheehy at
', '"•'•••   (865)494-9786;e-mail: :
        Catherine @tngreen; web site:
        www.tcwn.org. (The workshop
        is also being offered in Atlanta,
        (Feb. 17-18); and New Orleans,  ;
22-26   Working at the Watershed
        Level, Fresno, CA  Sponsored
        by the foteragency Watershed
   ':••    Training Cooperative. Visit the
        website: wwwdpla.Water.ca/
     :   gov/sjd/sjrmp/workshop/index-
        2001Jbitml.           ;

1—31    Workshop and Training
        Session: Restoring Streams,
        Riparian Areas and Flood-
        plains in the Southwest,
        Albuquerque, NM.  Sponsored
        by Fish and Wildlife Service,
        USDA, EPA, and others.
        Contact Jon Kusler at (518) 872-
        1804; e-mail: aswm@aswm.org.

21-23   10th Annual Southeastern
        Lakes Management Confer-
        ence, Knoxville, TN.Sponsored
        by the North American Lake
         Management Society and the
         Southeast Watershed Forum.
         Contact Sue Robertson, TVA,
         at(423) 751-3747; e-mail:
         ssrobertson@tva.gov, web site:
 25-29    Seventh Federal Interagency
         Sedimentation  Conference,
         Reno, NV. Contact Marlene
         Johnson, FISC Registration,
         Denver Federal Center, P.O. Box
         80225-Q007.Phone: (303)445-
   :      mjohnson@do.usbr.gov.

7       Enhancing the States'Lake
        Management Programs—
        Integrating Nonpoint Source
        Watershed Management with
        Lake Management and
        Protection, Chicago, IL.
        Contact Bob iQrschner,
        Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000
        LakeCookRd., Gleiicoe,IL
        60022.Phone: (847) 835-6837;
        Fax: (847) 835-1635; e-mail:
June-July 2001

June 27— National Watershed Forum.
Julyl    Hyatt Regency in Arlington
        (Crystal City), VA. Visit
        Meridian Institute's web site:

July 30- Managing River Flows for
Aug 2   Biodiversity: A  Conference
        on Science, Policy and
        Conservation Action, Colo-
        rado State University, Fort
        Collins, CO. Visit the web site:

Page 16
Watershed Events
Fall 2000
               Action  Plan to Address  Gulf "Dead Zone"

   Along the Gulf of Mexico's Texas-Louisiana Shelf, an area of hypoxia forms during the summer months. This
   area, often referred to as the "dead zone," is characterized by reduced sunlight and decreased oxygen levels
   in the water, adversely affecting aquatic life. Scientific evidence indicates that excess nitrogen from the 31-
   state Mississippi/Atchafalaya Rivers drainage basin drives the onset and duration of hypoxia. It affects up to
   7,728 square miles off Louisiana's coast, an area that is one of the nation's most productive fisheries (respon-
   sible for approximately 40 percent of U.S. fisheries landings). The engineering of the Mississippi River system
   and separation of rivers from their floodplains contribute to the hypoxia problem. Instead of water borne
   nutrients flooding and nourishing these f loodplains, the nutrients are swiftly carried to the Gulf.

   For the past four years, the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, chaired by EPA
   and comprised of 9 states, 2 tribes, and 9 other federal agencies, has worked to develop an Action Plan to
   reduce Gulf hypoxia. Mid-way through this process, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
   Research and Control Act. This legislative endorsement, accompanied by specific requirements and
   timef rames, has guided recent Task Force efforts. In June 2000, the Task Force published a draft Action Plan,
   and in October 2000, consensus was reached on a Final Action Plan. A major goal of the Plan is to significantly
   reduce the size of the hypoxic zone to less than 1,930 square miles by 2015. Further, the Action Plan aims for a
   30 percent reduction in the discharge of nitrogen to the Gulf. These reductions can be achieved through
   specific strategies to be developed within two years by states and tribes on a watershed basis. The Final
   Action Plan should be ready for the President to transmit to Congress later this year.
Views expressed in Watershed Events do not necessarily reflect those of EPA.  In addition, mention of commercial products
or publications does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by EPA.
                                                                               esn eiBAUd joj A"}|eii6d
                                                                               09170S Od 'uo}6uii|SBM

                                                                      AousBy uojioejojd i