United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4501F)
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
Updates
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
Roundtable
I. Pacific Northwest
II. California
III. Intermountain
IV. Heartland
V. Rocky Mountain
VI. South Central
VII. Great Lakes
r
VIII. MidAtfantic
II
IX. Northeast
>;_ '
X. Southeast ~~ __ f
XI. Alaska '"'
XII. Eastern Coal Region
XIII. Upper Mississippi
Convener
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
Dates
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,
Laura-
328-2JQ2
'i,
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 \
Chicago
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
.^;iNtKs:^i-1^^^.;^
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
Consultant
Janie French, Canaan Valley ;
Institute:
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:
PattyScott
U.S. EPA :
Ariel.Rios Building (4501F)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1956 ; U :
scott.patricia@epa.gov
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 '.
desanmecgJtetratech-ffx.corn
Correction
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
Foundation
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
watersheds.
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
others.
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
management.
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-
quently.
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
England.
• 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
areas.
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
Pages
Southeast Watershed Forum
Roundtable Engages City-
County Officials
by Christine Olsenius, Program
Consultant, Tennessee Valley Authority
The Alabama Department of
EnvironrnentalManagement
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
regulations.
Training
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
Associations
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
Partnership.
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
-------
Page6
Watershed Events
Fall 2000
Watershed Groups Speak
Up at Eastern Coal Region
Roundtable
by Janie French, Canaan Valley
Institute
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
consequences."
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
platform.
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.
-------
FaJ)2000
Watershed Events
Page 7
The California Watershed
Management Forums:
12 Steps to Watershed
Recovery
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
dialogue.
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
Framework"
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
below).
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. ; .
-------
PageS
Watershed Events
Fall 2000
AlaskaWatershed
Roundtable—A Community-
Based Approach to
Sustainability in the Great
Land
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
problems.
TheSolution(s)
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
issues.
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
clearinghouse.
• Act as a point of contact/access
to state/federal agencies for
assistance.
• 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
concepts.
• There needs to be a formal com-
mitment of resources and services
to such an entity, so it can leverage
support from other funding
sources.
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.
Awards
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
participation.
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
Georgia
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
requirements.
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
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
WATERSHED
COORDINATOR'S
ROUNDTABLE
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
results."
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:
mwolfe@montana.edu.
-------
Fa»2000
Watershed Events
Page 11
Enhanced Protections of
Wetlands and Other
Waters of the United
States Under the Proposed
"Tulloch"Clarification
Background
'X
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
that
virtually
the Court's
20,000 wetlan
targeted jfor di
destru
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."
CarolBrowner
EPA Administrator
Additional Protections for
Wetlands
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
iitfffiiiiy
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
stakeholders.
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
Conference
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
Pags13
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://
www.epa.gov/adopt/patch.
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
www.epa.gov/adopt/
education.html. Comments
on the nevvsite can
be directed to:
scott.patricia@epa.gov.
-------
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
reused.
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
www.watershedkit.com.
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
StormwaterStrategies
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
Released
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/
wetlands.
Community-Based
Environmental
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
www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/
news.htm.
-------
Fall 2000
Watershed Events
Page 15
November2000
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
:(800)858-4844;e-mail:
cindy@groundwater.org,
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:
www.watershed.org.wmc
17-19 California Farm Conference,
Santa Rosa, CA. Contact
Marcie Rosenzweig at (530)
888-9206;e-maiI:
: fullcircle@jps.net; web site: :
www.CaliforniaFarm
Conference.com.
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,
504,999CanadaPlace,
Vancouver, BC V6E 3. Phone:
(604)775-7300;e-mail:
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
Martin,EPAat(703)318-4678;
Fax:703-736-0826;website:
www.epa.gov/ttbnrmrl/
hgmining.htm.
30-Dec. 2 Workshop—Promoting
Participation in Community
Development, Knoxville,TN.
Sponsored by the University of
Tennessee. Visit the web site:
www.ra.utk.edu/cpc.
January 2001
7—9 Integrated Decision-Making for
Watershed Management
Symposium, 4-H Center,Chevy
Chase, MD. Visit the web site:
www.conted.vt.edu/watershed.htm.
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,
GAgan.27-28);Bkhingham,AL
(Feb. 17-18); and New Orleans, ;
LA(March24-25).
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. ;
March2001
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:
www.don-anderson.com/
senalms2001.
25-29 Seventh Federal Interagency
Sedimentation Conference,
Reno, NV. Contact Marlene
Johnson, FISC Registration,
Denver Federal Center, P.O. Box
25007(D-6700),Denver,CO
80225-Q007.Phone: (303)445-
2117;fax:(303)445-6323;e-mail
: mjohnson@do.usbr.gov.
AprU2001
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:
bkirschn@chicagobotanic.org.
June-July 2001
June 27— National Watershed Forum.
Julyl Hyatt Regency in Arlington
(Crystal City), VA. Visit
Meridian Institute's web site:
www.merid.org.
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:
www.freshwaters.org/confer-
ence.
-------
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.
OOS$
esn eiBAUd joj A"}|eii6d
sseujsng
09170S Od 'uo}6uii|SBM
AousBy uojioejojd i
------- |