JUNE 8-12, 1996


                                  WATERSHED '96
       WATERSHED '9
\j i
              Plenary Proceedings*
                  June 1997
                JUNE 8-12, 1996
: Full conference proceedings are available from WEF, order number CP3602 (toll free 800-666-0206)
and on EPA's website.


                                                                         WATERSHED '96  SPONSORS
                                          Watershed '96 Sponsors
  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  U.S. Bureau of Land Management
  U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  U.S. Geological Survey
  USDA Cooperative State Research,
      Education and Extension Service
 USDA Forest Service
 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
     Council on Environmental Quality
 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Federal Highway Administration
 National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
 Tennessee Valley Authority
 Water Environment Federation (Conference Managers)
                                        Cooperating Organizations
  American Academy of Environmental Engineers
  American Consulting Engineers Council
  American Farmland Trust
  American Society of Civil Engineers
  American Water Resources Association
  American Water Works Association
  Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
  Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
     Control Administrators
  Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
  Association of State Watershed Managers
  Capital Agricultural Property Services, Inc.
  Chesapeake Water Environment Association
  Clean Sites
  Clinton River Watershed Council
  The Conservation Fund
  Conservation Technology Information Center
  Cornell Cooperative Extension
  Deere and Company
  Farm-A-Syst/Home-A-Syst Program
  Friends of the Earth
  Friends of the River
  The Ground Water Foundation
  Groundwater Protection Council
  Heidelberg College, Water Quality Laboratory
  Idaho Rivers United
  International City/County Management Association
  International Joint  Commission
  Interstate Comm. on the Potomac River Basin
 Izaak Walton League
 Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
 League of Women Voters
 Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District
 Lower Colorado River Authority
 Massachusetts Watershed Coalition
 National Association of Conservation Districts
 National Assoc. of State Conservation Agencies
 National Association of State Foresters
 National Association of Water Companies
 National Coalition for Heritage Areas
 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
 National Pork Producers Council
 National Watershed Coalition
 New York Rivers United
 Orange County Sanitation District
 Pacific Rivers Council
 Rivers Council of Washington
 River Network
 Soil & Water Conservation Society
 University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture
 Urban Land Institute
 U.S. Department of Energy
 U.S. Department of the Interior Office of
    Surface Mining
Virginia Water Environment Association
Watershed Agricultural Council for the New York City
Watersheds, Inc.
World Wildlife Fund
                   Corporate Co-sponsors for Watershed Festival and National Video Conference
Lower Colorado River Authority             National Pork Producers Council                 Raytheon Corporation
                          City of Baltimore
                                              Local Co-sponsors
          State of Maryland

                                                     WATERSHED '96 CONFERENCE  COMMITTEE

                                     Paul L. Freedman, Limno-Tech, Inc.
                            Louise P. Wise, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                              Subcommittee Chairs
Ncal E. Armstrong, University of Texas at Austin, Chair - Technical Program Subcommittee
Janet Pawlukiewicz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chair - Plenary Subcommittee
James T. Canaday, Alexandria Sanitation Authority, Co-chair - Field Trip Subcommittee
Raynetta C. Grant, Water Environment Research Foundation, Co-Chak - Workshop Subcommittee
Dean E. Mericas, Limno-Tech, Inc., Co-chair - Interactive Subcommittee
Cis Myers, Lower Colorado River Authority, Co-Chak - Workshop Subcommittee
Adrienne D. Nemura, Metro Washington Council of Governments, Co-chair - Field Trip Subcommittee
Carolyn H. Olsen, Brown & Caldwell, Co-chair - Interactive Subcommittee
Fernando Pasquel, CH2M  HILL, Co-Chair - Technology Demo/Resource Fair Subcommittee
Michael Savage, CH2M HILL, Co-Chair Technical Program Subcommittee
Richard F. Schwer, DuPont Company, Co-Chair - Stakeholders, Outreach, and Involvement Subcommittee
Alan H. Vicory, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, Co-Chak - Stakeholders Involvement, Outreach
Michael Yurewicz, U. S. Geological Survey, Co-Chair - Technology Demo/Resource Fair Subcommittee
                                             Subcommittee Members
Howard 0. Andrews, Jr., Black & Veatch
John Aronson, Advanced Aquatic Technology Assoc., Inc.
Larry Babich, US. Department of Agriculture
Jim Bachmaier, U. S. Department of Energy
Fred Bank, Federal Highway Administration
David R. Beeson, The S.M. Stoller Corporation
Neil Berg, USDA Forest Service
Susan S. Blount, American Water Works Association
Don Brady, U. S. Envkonmental Protection Agency
Robert Brumbaugh, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers IWR
Elana H. Cohen, The League of Women Voters
Fred Cowles, Michigan Dept. of Envkonmental Quality
Kevin Coyle, National Environ. Ed. Training Foundation
John Gulp, Tennessee Valley Authority
Paul A, DeBarry, R. K. R. Hess Associates
Thomas Decker, Black & Veatch
Glenn W, Dukes, CH2M HILL
Andrew J. Englande, Jr., Tulane University Medical Center
Deb Grantham, Cornell University
Richard Hall, Maryland Office of Planning
William J. Hansen, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Roxanne L. Hinzman, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Carolyn T. Hunsaker, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Chuck Job, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Karol Keppy, Know Your Watershed
Karen S. Klima, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Les Lampe, Black & Veatch
Jeffrey L. Lape, Woolpert Consultants
Peter McCarthy, Green Bay Metro Sewerage District
Pat Munoz, River Network
Douglas I Norton, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Vladimir Novotny, Marquette University
Ronald F. Ott, CH2M HILL
Lynn H. Palmer, Washington County Sanitary District
Cynthia Paulson, Brown & Caldwell
Kathleen Pickering, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Elizabeth A. Quinlan, Black & Veatch
Robert J. Reimold, Metcalf &  Eddy
David W. Rommelmann, Boyle Engineering Corp.
Mary Ann Rozum, U.S. Department of Agriculture, CSREES
Tom Russo, U.S. Department of Energy, FERC
Susan Seacrest, The Groundwater Foundation
James D. Sherrill, Wade Trim, Inc.
Theodore Slawecki, Limno-Tech, Inc.
Ethan T. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey
William G. Stannard, Black & Veatch
Michael P. Sullivan, Limno-Tech, Inc.
Monte Ter Haar, U.S. Department of Energy, FERC
JudyTroast, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
James L. Van de Riet, Buck, Seifert and Jost, Inc.
Kenneth Walker, NOAA/OCRM
Nancy J. Wheatley, Orange County Sanitation District

                              THE VICE PRESIDENT
                                   WASH INGTON
                              June 8, 1996

Watershed '96
Baltimore, Maryland

Dear Friends:

     I am pleased to have this opportunity to welcome everyone
participating in Watershed  '96.  I regret that I cannot be with
you in person, but I do want to send my very best wishes for a
successful and productive conference.

     Certainly, by participating in this important conference,
you have made a commitment  to addressing the most serious
environmental challenges facing this nation's watershed regions.
I am confident that your close examination of our approach to
watershed management will be valuable to citizens and lawmakers
around the country.

     You can be sure that the President and I will consider your
findings carefully as we build upon our own efforts to find
reasonable,  effective, and  sustainable approaches to the
protection and management of our natural resources.  By working
together, we all can make a lasting difference for our planet.

     Again,  please accept my warmest wishes for a successful
conference.  I look forward to working with you in the future.
                              Al Gore
                        PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

         SPRING RAIN
                    Robert Hass
                    Poet Laureate
Now the rain is falling freshly, in the intervals between sunlight,

a Pacific squall started no one knows where, drawn east as the
drifts of warm air make a channel:

it moves its own way, like water or the mind,

and spills this rain passing over. The Sierras will catch it as last
snow flurries before summer, observed only by the wakened
marmots at ten thousand feet,

and we will come across it again as larkspur and penstemon
sprouting along a creek above Sonora Pass next August,

where the snowmelt will have trickled into Dead Man's Creek
and the creek spilled into the Stanislaus and the Stanislaus into
the San Joaquin and the San Joaquin into the low salt marshes
of the bay.
an exerpt with permission from the author
copyright Ecco Press, Human Wishes. 1989

Watershed '96
Plenary Proceedings
Table of Contents
Watershed'96: A Brief Overview	/
Welcome to Watershed '96-Paul Freedman	3

Establishing a Common Goal: Sustainability-Monday, June 10,1996
Opening Remarks
  RichardD. Kuchenrither, Ph.D., RE.	4
  Robert Perciasepe	5
Keynote Address-Jonathan Lash	#
Welcoming Remarks
  The Honorable Kurt L. Schmoke	/2
  The Honorable Parris N. Glendening	14

Getting Down to Business: Frameworks for Action-Tuesday, June 11,1996
Keynote Address-^a/p/z Grossi	//
Opening Remarks-Z-a/ry Selzer	20
Response to Watershed Challenges Panel Discussion	22
Special Exercise-Gathering Responses From Large Groups	30

Special Guest-Wednesday, June 12,1996
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt	32

Luncheon Address-Wednesday, June 12,1996
Telling the Story: Communicating Complex Environmental Issues to the Public
Judith Gradwohl	34

Achieving Results Community by Community: A National Satellite Videoconference
Wednesday, June 12,1996
Remarks -The Honorable Carol M. Browner	36
Remarks -The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert	38
Remarks -Katherine Baril	40
The Greenwich Bay Initiative: A Watershed-Based Restoration Effort	43
Working Together to Renew the Milwaukee River Basin	45
The Henry's Fork Watershed	;	;	48
The Seco Creek Watershed	57


Watershed  f 96: A Brief Overview
         Watershed '96, held June 8-12, 1996, in Balti
         more, Maryland, was a resounding success,
         fully exemplifying its theme of "Moving Ahead
Together."  Approximately 2000 people participated in
the conference. They came from a variety of backgrounds,
including public education, government, state and local
groups, public and privately-owned utilities, environmen-
tal groups, researchers, public policy experts, and many
others. Also, teleconference downlinks involved thou-
sands of other participants at another 156 remote sites.
The theme, "Moving Ahead Together" was realized not
just through the number and diversity of participants, but
also the range of conference activities and the manner in
which conference participants worked together.

     The conference opened with eight technical work-
shops on the first two days to educate watershed profes-
sionals. This was complemented by a watershed festival
and an education symposium targeting the interests of
both the professional and the public. The festival, called
"Walking Through the Watershed," was co-sponsored by
WEF and the Groundwater Foundation. It highlighted 30
activities that might be adapted for local festivals.  A
Watershed Education Action-Plan Symposium for Envi-
ronmental Educators was hosted by WEF and funded by
a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. It
generated a road map for future watershed education to be
presented at the annual meeting of the North American
Association for Environmental Educators.

     Continuing on the conference theme, a series of
interactive stakeholder workshops were held daily over
breakfast to give hands-on experience  with consensus
building through watershed planning. Participants took
on roles that gave them insights  into the dynamics and
challenges of stakeholder involvement. A watershed
model was developed for these workshops and was used
by participants to help identify, prioritize, negotiate, and
resolve a range of issues related to watershed manage-
     The conference Technical Program was central to
Watershed '96. Eighty technical sessions were held dur-
ing the conference. Over 340 speakers provided compre-
hensive technical information.  The major tracks of the
sessions included the following:
    • Overview of the Watershed Approach
    • Institutions, Relationships and Outreach
    • Economic and Social Considerations
    • Decision Making and Management Regimes
    • Analytical Tools
    • Watershed Enhancement Tools

     A Conference Proceedings, including every paper
that was presented, was distributed at the conference, and
is still now available from the Water Environment Federa-
tion and on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/

     The program also included two plenary sessions,
luncheon speakers, and a satellite broadcast
videoconference. The opening conference plenary, "Es-
tablishing a Common Goal: Sustainability" was mod-
erated by Paul Freedman, President of Limno-Tech, Inc.
and WEF conference co-chair.  The session included
remarks from officials and dignitaries.  The keynote
speech  was given by Jonathan Lash, President  of the
World Resources Institute and Co-chair of the President's
Council on Sustainable Development. The plenary also
included a multi-media presentation using images from
many of the technical presentations that would occur later
in the sessions.

     The second plenary session, "Getting Down to
Business - Frameworks for Action", was moderated by
Lawrence Selzer, Vice President of the Conservation
Fund and Director of the National  Forum on Nonpoint
Source Pollution.  Ralph Grossi, President of the Ameri-
can Farmland Trust and a member of the National Forum
on Nonpoint Source Pollution, gave a keynote address:
Mr. Selzer moderated a panel of innovative environmen-

                                                                                          Watershed '96
tal managers who described the approaches their organi-
zations are taking to get involved in watershed manage-
ment. The panelists included views from corporations,
states, Native American tribes, and local groups.  The
plenary session concluded with a large group response
exercise that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers designed
to explore watershed views  from the large and diverse
group of conference attendees.

     Participants were treated to anunexpectedluncheon
speaker, The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of
the Interior, who gave a stirring speech on his experi-
ences with people and groups doing watershed manage-
ment.  He had earlier heard some feedback about the
conference while it was ongoing and decided it was such
a landmark event that he changed his schedule specifically
to come and express his ideas and encouragement to the
conference attendees.

     The  conference  closed   with  a   plenary
videoconference, "Watershed '96 On The Air: Achiev-
ing Results Community by Community".   The
videoconference was produced  by Cornell University,
through a grant from the USDA Cooperative State Re-
search, Education and Extension Service. It was viewed
by the live audience at the Baltimore Convention Center
and at 156 downlink sites from around the continent. Forty
states had sites, as did Canada and Mexico. Participants
heard remarks from the Honorable Sherwood Boehlert,
U.S. Representative from New York, and Carol Browner,
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency, gave the keynote address. Katherine Baril, from
the Washington State University Extension Service, mod-
crated the broadcast.  The  remainder of the broadcast
examined four casestudies of watershed managementand
restoration.  Participants from downlink sites called and
faxed questions that were discussed on the air.  Many of
the downlink sites had local programming surrounding
the broadcast that featured discussions and speakers from
their locality. The videos are available for purchase from
ore-man Dist_Center@cce.cornell.edu.

      The technical program included other elements that
echoed the diversity and themes from the plenaries and
other sessions.such as tabletopics, posters, and technol-
ogy demonstrations. The table topic presentations were
extremely popular.  Fifty-three tables were fiUed with
interested participants who took advantage of the unique
opportunity to hear a presentation and have an informal
discussion with the presenter and other attendees.  Poster
sessions were included for two days of the conference to
accommodate the total of 68 posters.   A  technology
demonstration area was also set up involving 16 organiza-
 tions demonstrating the latest in computer technologies,
 including Internet access, GIS, modeling decision support
 and analysis, BMP evaluations, screening, and other inter-
 esting software. The conference also included an exposi-
 tion of 57 exhibiting organizations (commercial, agency
 and nonprofit) utilizing 5,800 square feet of space.
     Last, hands-on field trips were offered to examine
many local watershed efforts up-close.  Tours included a
PatuxentRiver Watershed, demonstration cruises on EPA's
Ocean Survey Vessel the peter W. Anderson, Druid HiU
Park and Herring Run Park, Quail Creek, Chesapeake
Farms Sustainable Agricultural Project, Kenilworth March
Restoration, and Alexandria, Virginia's Delaware Sand
Filter, Underground Sand Filter, and Bio-Retention Fil-

     Watershed '96 was thorough in its content and
participation, an exciting demonstration of its theme,
"Moving Ahead Together". It brought ideas, information,
and people together to further promote the use of water-
shed management as a better means to restore and protect
our water environment.  Watershed '96 was a success by
all measures.

Welcome to  Watershed  ?96
Paul L. Freedman
Conference Co-Chair
        Good morning! I am Paul Freedman, President of
        Limno-Tech and Co-chair of the conference for
        the Water Environment Federation, along with
 Louise Wise, my counterpart from the U.S. Environmen-
 tal Protection Agency. We are honored to chair Watershed
 '96, and want to thank the dozens of people who helped in
 planning and organizing this event and hundreds more
 who contributed to the program.

      It certainly is exciting to see so many people of such
 diverse interests gather together. As I greeted many of my
 colleagues and friends, I saw researchers, engineers, sci-
 entists, environmentalists', people from government, in-
 dustry, citizen groups, even attorneys—all here because
 they're excited about watershed management.

      This feels like a reunion. Not just a reunion after
 Watershed '93 (although many of you attended that con-
 ference), but a reunion in a larger sense—a 20 or 25-year
 reunification of professionals and citizens dedicated to
 preserving and enhancing the water environment.

      Let me explain. In 1973,1 began my career at a time
 of heightened focus on environmental issues, a time when
 the Clean Water  Act and other major environmental
 legislation had just passed. I felt part of a unified team of
 scientists, engineers, regulators, and citizens, all working
 together to protect the environment. In the 70' s and early
 80's, we, as a team, made great progress.

      The Great Lakes was a major emphasis for my early
 work and progress there exemplifies our success.  For
 example, in my former hometown of Cleveland, Ohio, the
 Cuyahoga River no longer burns and is now a showcase
 for restaurants and nightclubs. Likewise, Lake Erie is no w
 a major recreational resource for boating and fishing.

      But with this progress began debate and division of
 this unified team. In the late 80' s, we began to argue over
 methods and priorities. During this time, I felt we lost the
 unity of purpose and commitment I felt as a new graduate.

      In the 70' s, we focused on wastewater as the major
 culprit. Butrecently, environmental protectionissues have
 become more complex involving nonpoint, landuse, habi-
 tat andcomplexsorioeconomicissues.Infact, today in the
 Great Lakes the biggest and newest issues are habitat
protection, agricultural runoff, and exotic species, a far
cry from the wastewater controls we promoted in 70' s &

     This conference, however gives me a sense of new
excitement. A sense of direction and reunification  of
effort. Here today .jointly promoting watershed approaches
are those same adversaries who fought divisively about
environmental priorities in the late 80's and early 90's.

     I believe we, as  a society, are coming to a new
realization that water quality and environmental protec-
tion needs to be managed—not piecemeal—but holisti-
cally by watersheds.

     The watershed approach does this by examining all
elements and factors in a watershed and incorporating all
stakeholders in developing workable solutions that ad-
dress true priorities. I truly believe the concept of water-
shed management represents a new paradigm for environ-
mental protection.

     Here today, we have a phenomenal conference, not
just because of its comprehensive content and attendees,
but because it is sponsored by 14 Federal agencies and
dozens of cooperating organizations. In this modern era of
government and politics, what other topic have you ever
seen 14 Federal agencies actually  agree on let alone
embrace and promote?

     Watershed protection provides the mechanism for
us to move the next step forward in environmental resto-
ration and protection, not by force of law but by consen-
sus. Working  together  to establish common goals and
common priorities.

     This unified view is exemplified by the diversity of
people and organizations at this conference all promoting
the watershed approach. It is for this reason that I am

     Hence I view this as a reunion of the team that
started a job two and a half decades ago and now has a new
vision on how to complete it.

     So again, welcome to Watershed '96.

 Establishing a Common Goal: Sustaiftability
 Monday, June 10,1996
Opening Remarks
Richard D. Kuchenrither, Ph.D., RE.
Water Environment Federation
       Thankyou and welcome to Watershed '96, a monu-
       mental collaborative effort of the Water Environ-
       ment Federation, 14 federal agencies, and many,
 many cooperating organizations.
      Many believe water is our most important resource.
 Without clean water, there is no sustainable life possible
 as we know it In searching for ways to sustain life and
 ensure adequate supplies of clean
 water, we have returned to the
 concept of watershed manage-
      I say returned because, as
 many of us working in the field
 realize, the concept of watershed
 management is not new. In fact,
 it is a very old idea.
      John Wesley Powell was the founder of the U.S.
 Geological Survey in the late 1800s and a pioneer in the
 concept of watersheds. Inhis article "Institutions for Arid
 Lands,"which was publishedin May 1890,Powell recom-
 mended that the political boundaries of the West should be
 coincident with the drainage boundaries. In the article, he
 stated "that the entire aridregions should be organized into
 natural hydrographic districts, each one to be a common-
 wealth within itself for the purpose of controlling and
 using the great values of irrigation.... The plan is to
 establish local self-government by hydrographic basins."
 Although Powell's idea was not implemented, it was as
 relevant then as it is today. Now we are gathered to discuss
 how to move ahead together with watershed manage-
 ment—recognizing the great value the concept has for
 planning, protecting, and sustaining our water resources.
      Profound wisdom comes not only from the founders
 of great institutions but also, surprisingly, from the pur-
 veyors of bumper stickers. I recently saw abumper sticker
 which read, "Everyone has a mother and everyone has a
 watershed,"  That's one way to get the word out.
      The Water Environment Federation (WEF) is also
 very involved in getting the word  out WEF is a very
 active part of Water Quality 2000, the goal of which is to
"Everyone has a mother and
everyone has a watershed."
 "develop and implement an integrated policy for the
 nation to protect and enhance water quality that supports
 society living in harmony with healthy natural systems."
 We know that the Clean Water Act has brought substantial
 improvements in the quality of our nation's waters. Our
 members recognize that further progress in enhancing
 water quality and protecting drinking water sources will
                   depend on our ability to address
                   many pollutant sources and ad-
 	    verse environmental conditions
                   which fall outside the traditional
                   water quality regulatory frame-
	    work. This has led to a renewed
                   interest in water quality planning
                   and management on a watershed
 basis. The watershed approach represents a comprehen-
 sive and integrated strategy for protecting all  water re-
 sources, including uplands, drainage basins, wetlands,
 and surface and ground waters. This approach has diverse
 support from water quality professionals, including the
 Water Environment Federation.
      I would like to personally thank the program com-
 mittee chairs, Paul Freedman and Louise Wise, the pro-
 gram committee,  the WEF staff, and others for their
 tremendous efforts in putting together an exciting pro-
 gram for this conference. We have three action-packed,
 educational days planned for you.
      Enjoy your conference. »>

 Monday, June 10,1996
Opening  Remarks
Robert Perciasepe
Assistant Administrator for Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                               Despite the benefits that we all accrue
                               from clean waters, they continue to be
I      am really pleased to help kick off this plenary
     session of the Watershed '96 conference here in
     Baltimore, my home town. Watershed '96 has a nice
 ring to it, almost as nice as Watershed '93, whichis the last
 time many of us got together at the national level to assess
 how far we have come with watershed management. I see
 this event as one of the most important activities EPA will
 support all year.  In our view, watershed management
 offers the greatest possible potential for significantly
 improving water resource restoration and protection.
      Of course, it will not be enough to concentrate on
 these issues while we are here. We need to take back what
 we learn to where we work and to where we live, and to try
 to instill in others some of the ideas discussed here related
 to water resources management in the United States.  I
 think that watershed management is a very important
 concept, one that we need to continue pursuing in a very
 aggressive way.
 Importance of the nation's waters

      The reason that watershed management is so criti-
 cally important—and I think we've already heard some
 discussion along these lines—is the importance of our
 nation's waters.  Our water resources are critically impor-
 tant to this country, whether we are talking about drinking
 water, or about clean water for recreation, or about the role
 of water in the economic vitality of this country.
      Just about two blocks from here, you see an inner
 harbor that has totally changed in the last 20 years, and in
 that respect Baltimore is similar to other cities that have
 recently looked to  their  waterfronts for revitalization.
 Every year, over 20 million people visit this waterfront
 and the attractions there. The water still needs to be further
 improved, but it is making progress. This progress has
 enabled the kind of revitalization that has taken place, and
 a certain civic pride has developed from that.
                                    Our vital drinking water supplies depend on clean
                               water.  Many economic sectors rely on clean  water,
                               including recreation and tourism, agriculture, commercial
                               fishing, and manufacturing, which depend on clean water
                               to deliver their products and services. Collectively, these
                               sectors create jobs and generate billions and billions of
                               dollars for our economy.
                               Our resources are at risk

                                    While we recognize the benefits that depend on
                               clean water, we also recognize that our nation's waters are
                               a resource at risk. Despite the benefits that we all accrue
                               from clean waters, they continue to be degraded.  The
                               reality is that our waters are being stressed by multiple
                               pollutants and activities from multiple sources.
                                    Working with our partners, the states, EPA rou-
                               tinely does assessments of water quality on a national
                               scale. The latest data from the states show that nearly 40
                               percent of the waters surveyed are still not safe for the
                               basic goals that we have set for water quality—not safe for
                               fishing or swimming.
                                    In fact, today, EPA is releasing this year's listing of
                               fish consumption advisories  around the country.  The
                               results show us that fish consumption advisories or bans
                               are in effect in far too many water bodies around the
                               country. In fact, the more we look, the more we find. This
                               is a trend that must be reversed. It can only be reversed by
                               looking at things holistically.
                               Importance of watershed approach

                                   This brings me to why the watershed approach—
                               and this conference—is so important. Rather than focus-
                               ing piecemeal  on  individual problems, the  watershed
                               approach involves looking across a watershed at all stres-
                               sors. It involves looking at the harvesting of fish in the
                               context of the sustainability of a particular watershed area;


Conference Proceedings
       tions to farmers to school children to retired senior
       volunteers. There are very few things that attract
       that kind of diversity of people together at differ-
       ent levels, and we think this kind of diversity is a
       very important part  of what watersheds are all
          The national "Know Your Watershed" cam-
       paign, which serves as a clearinghouse on water-
       shed information, organizations, and events, tells
       us that the number of watershed groups registered
       with them has increased to roughly 700 right now.
         The coalition called "River Network" is dedi-
       cated to building citizen groups to speak out for
       rivers in every watershed across the country. They
       have a strategic plan called "Watershed 2000,"
       and under it they are working to have 400 Citizen
       Watershed Councils in place by the year 2000, and
       2,000 Citizen Councils in place by 2020.

       Watersheds are bringing about unexpected alli-
       ances between groups that do notnecessarily have
       a history of working together. There are alliances
       between industry and environmental groups, be-
       tween  state and local governments, between a
       watershed council and a church. These unique
       alliances are going to be needed to solve some of
       the tough problems facing us in the future. That is
       why we  need to keep building this  watershed
       management foundation.

       Governments are learning and practicing the art
       of reinvention—& notion that  has been driving
       private sector productivity for some time—and in
       so doing, helping to facilitate and advance water-
       shed management on many levels. This kind of
       coordinated change is being called a paradigm
         At EPA, the paradigm shift has revolutionized
      a whole  range of water quality programs. For
      example, our NPDES program—the National Pol-
      lution Discharge Elimination System, which is the
      permit system for controlling point-source pollu-
      tion—is working to coordinate permits, monitor-
      ing, and enforcement on a watershed-by-water-
      shedbasis, as opposed to a source-by-sourcebasis.
      The drinking  water program, which for too long
      has been  disconnected from the surface water
      program, is now finding ways to connect with
      source-protection efforts that focus on watershed
      and aquifer-recharge  areas.  It is helping thou-
      sands of communities take watershed approaches
      to  protecting both ground- and surface-water
      sources of drinking water. Our wetlands program
      supports holistic watershed approaches to wetland
      preservation and management.  Our  standards
      program is beginning to explore, through a na-
      tional dialogue, how the standards program can be
      tailored to deal with  watershed imperatives.  I
      could go  on.   We are reconstituting the state
      revolving fund so that it looks at watershed priori-
       ties. The nonpoint source program uses watershed
       approaches in dealing with nonpoint sources.
          Everything I've just mentioned has to do with
       the federal water program. There is also a great
       deal of innovation going on at the state level.  In
       many cases, state water quality agencies are lead-
       ing the way, trying out new ways of doing busi-
       ness, whether it be effluent trading such as that
       being practiced in North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico
       watershed, or tributary strategies herein Maryland
       for the Chesapeake Bay, or other watershed work.
       So far, it looks to us like 36 states are in the process
       of developing some pretty strong watershed ap-
Closing remarks

      We can see a lot of progress being made. Increas-
ingly, watershed management is moving beyond an ideal-
ized concept to a reality of working on a day-to-day basis
in how we implement our programs and excite the public
about the possibility of clean water in their communities.
      This commitment must remain strong. You have to
leave here as advocates of watershed management. You
have to carry forward the message that by building on the
base that we have developed over the last 20 years, we can
achieve clean water in this country; we can achieve more
than we' ve imagined if we all work together and concen-
trate on the task at hand. I trust that all of you will do that;
otherwise you wouldn't be here.   In addition  to the
conference attendance here in Baltimore, we are reaching
out to communities  with 150 downlink  sites across the
country for Wednesday's plenary session. It's exciting
because these connections further the concept of commu-
nity involvement in watershed management. Thank you,
and I too wish all of you a good conference. »»»

 Establishing h Common Goal: Sustafiiability
 Monday, June 10,1996
Keynote Address
Jonathan Lash
President, World Resources Institute and
Co-chair, President's Council on Sustainable Development
                        Much of our policy debate in this country,
                        in the past, has involved a discussion of
                        means before -we decided on the ends.
J     ust three years ago, President Clinton established
     flic President's Council on Sustainable Develop-
     ment —in a Rose Garden ceremony on a blindingly
hot, sunny day—and appointed Dave Buzzelli and me as
its co-chairs. We are, if nothing else, improbable partners.
He is an engineer. I'm a lawyer.
     Dave has spent his entire career at Dow. He is a
senior vice president and corporate director, who is com-
mitted to his company.
     I've spent my en-
tire career essentially on
the other side of a lot of
issues. I was an environ-
mental litigator with the
Natural Resources De-
fense Council. I have
also been a regulator—
and one not exactly per-
ceived as an easy-going,
compromising type.
     Then, three and a half years ago, before I had been
appointed to the Council, I arrived back in Washington to
become president of an environmental think tank called
the World Resources Institute. I was surprised to get a
phone call from Dave Buzzeli inviting me to lunch.  I
didn't know Dave at all at that time. In the couple of hours
we spent together, he talked about some of the things that
Dow had been doing—things that Dow's chairman, Frank
Popoff, believed in.  I talked a little about what I saw
happening hi environmental policy. He then surprised me
by suggesting that I come out to Dow two weeks later and
address their corporate board of directors.
     So  a couple of weeks later I found myself on a
corporate jet saying to myself, What do I say to these
people who I used to sue? I started out by saying, 'T m not
going to say to you what I would have said 10 years ago,
but then I don't think you would have invited me 10 years
ago"—and Frank  Popoff, Dow's chairman, leaned over
and said, "not even five."
     Dave and I found ourselves in some ways joined at
the hip as co-chairs of this council. We've learned a lot
from each other.   Our partnership is indicative of the
membership of the Council and the way that we all learned
to work together. The Council membership was diverse
and distinguished: nine corporate chief executives from
Fortune  500  companies, the leaders of several  major
environmental groups, representatives of Native Ameri-
cans, civil rights, labor, and five members of the President's
                               The task the Presi-
                          dent gave us was to come
                          up with a sustainable de-
                          velopment strategy for the
                          United States and also to
                          identify examples of sus-
                          tainable development in
                          action around  the coun-
                          try. Isuspectthatwecould
just have interviewed many of you hi this room to get
stories of sustainable development.
     It's important to think about the  context within
which this Council was working.  It's not much of a
surprise to say that the politics of the issues included in the
broad context of sustainability have been confrontational.
They've been confrontational for two decades.
     The legacy of confrontation has made it enormously
difficult to find experimental and compromise solutions
because generally the ground being discussed has been so
hard-won. A second difficulty is that, in the past, we have
tended to discuss issues in separate boxes. According to
this kind of compartmentalized thinking, EPA's water
office would not be expected to talk about air pollution
issues or community issues or endangered species issues
or economic growth. But how can you possibly address
the kinds of issues that you all are here for—watershed
issues—without understanding that you need to integrate
issues that, historically, have been discussed separately.

 Conference Proceedings
      Still a third difficulty has to do with the fact that
 since the beginning of our country, the genius of our
 political system has beenits protection of individual rights
 and liberties. The basis of our economic system has been
 the satisfaction of individual wants and needs. And the
 core of our culture has been the recognition of individual
 achievement and performance—whether Michael Jordan
 or the Marlborough Man. But the problems we' re running
 up against now are problems of the community. That,
 above all, is what the President's  Council on Sustainable
 Development sought to confront.
      Three years ago, the members of the Council did not
 come to this task with a great deal of trust or shared
 experience. We finally began to overcome our differences
 whenwebeganasearchforsomebroad,shared values that
 we articulated as a set of principles that we could use as a
 basis for continuing with our debate.  For example, the
 first on our list of 16 principles, or beliefs, that underlie all
 of our subsequent agreements is the following:

       To achieve our vision of sustainable development,
       some things mustgrow —jobs,productivity, wages,
       capital and savings, profits, information, knowl-
       edge, and education—and others—pollution,
       waste, and poverty—must not.

     Of  course,  the  Council was talking  about
 sustainability at the same time that Congress was talking
 about changing the environmental laws. Some members
 of the Council  saw the proposed legislative changes as
 rollbacks and were deeply angered by that to the point of
 being reluctant to proceed with talking about sustainability
 while the foundation stones of everything they believed in
 were being tugged  away.  In the end, the Council as a
 whole reached  an agreement that sustainability cannot
 proceed without that level playing field that is made up of
 the environmental laws and regulations of the last 20
 years. It is important to acknowledge, we agreed, that the
 country has made enormous progress on the basis of those
 laws and regulations, and we continue to need that set of
 entry rules in order to build further progress.
     We also agreed that, for the future, we need to build
 upon that foundation, to invent a  different system. That
 agreement in principle between  corporate leaders and
 environmental  leaders  was enormously difficult—and
 enormously important—and it freed us  to begin a discus-
 sion of longer term goals in the country. That was a key
juncture for us.
     You know the section in  Alice in Wonderland,
 where  Alice meets the  Mad Hatter and yells at him,
 "Which way should I go?" And he says, "That very much
 depends on where you want to end up, my dear." Much of
 our policy debate in this country, in the past, has involved
 a discussion of means before we decided on the ends. The
 Council tried to approach its task by looking at the ends,
 by starting witha25-year vision of the UnitedStates on the
 path to sustainability. We developed a set of 10 goals for
 sustainability.  The  notion for each goal was to make a
 broad statement of direction for the country.  For each
 goal, we also put together a set of indicators to show more
explicitly  what we  mean and how we would measure
 when we got there. The first goal focused on environmen-
 tal issues.
    Ensure that every person enjoys the benefits of clean air,
    clean water, and a healthy environment at home, at
    work, and at play.

    Clean Air: people living in areas that fail to meet air
    quality standards.
    Drinking Water: people whose drinking water fails to
    meet national safe drinking water standards.
    Toxic Exposures: releases that contribute  to human
    exposure to toxic materials.
    Diseases and Mortality: diseases and deaths from en-
    vironmental exposures,  including occupationally re-
    lated illnesses.
      The next goal deals with what  was one of the
toughest issues for us—the issue of economic growth. In
general, it was a difficult task for our group to understand
and begin to address the need to integrate economic,
environmental, and social goals; it was difficult to recog-
nize that, although we talk about all those things sepa-
rately, they are really for people in their everyday lives
separate strands  in a single dream of a better life.
Sustainability requires that we address those strands in an
integrated way and develop not only a set of goals, but a
set of policies that support the full set of goals—rather
than treating each of the goals as antagonistic alternatives.
                      GOAL 2:
   Sustain a healthy U. S. economy that grows sufficiently to
   create meaningful jobs, reduce poverty, and provide the
   opportunity for a high quality of life for all in an increas-
   ingly competitive world.

   Economic Performance: per capital GDP and NDP.
   Employment number, wage level, and quality of jobs.
   Poverty: people living below poverty line.
   Savings and Investment Rates: per-capita rates.
   Natural Resource and  Environmental Accounting:
   Development and use of new economic measures or
   satellite accounts that reflect resource depletion and envi-
   ronmental costs.
   Productivity: per-capita production per hour worked.
     Achieving sustainable communities is another goal
that the Council articulated. Something we found when-
ever we left Washington and held meetings outside of the

                                                                                          Watershed '96
Capitol: There were enormous energy and activity and
focus on integrated goals and integrated policies at the
community level. We began to understand that it was at
the community level that people still had some faith in
their capacity to address issues through policy. It was at
the  community level
where they could see the
results of their experi-
ments immediately, and
where they could under-
stand the connection be-    	
twcen engagement, collec-
tive action, and better
     There were ten goals, as I said. We used the goals
as abasis for developing a set of policy recommendations,
which are essentially experiments with means of achiev-
ing the goals. There are 59 policy recommendations in the
report; with them are 107 specific action items covering
everythingfrom environmental education to consumption
to population to international leadership.
      I7or example, one of the Council's recommenda-
tions is  to create a new, alternative performance-based
environmental management system. Back when I started
working in the environmental field 20 years ago, as an
advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, it
was really impossible to track environmental performance.
All you could do was send out a lab truck, take a sample
and take it to the lab, and then you would know what was
happening a week ago for one particular period of an hour
or 24 hours—which was  no way to measure ongoing
performance. Now, of course, all of that has changed. It
substances at a parts-per-billion level on a continuous
basis, to feed the information back into a computer, and to
manage the system in real time. But our existing regula-
tory system, understandably, was built around the old
problems. First of all, it isn't a performance-based sys-
tem; it was built as  an engineering  system because we
could enforce engineering standards back then.  Second,
the existing  regulatory system reflects the fact that 20
years ago we were essentially in a confrontational period,
in which we were seeking compliance by reluctant indus-
trial entities.
      Since then, there's been technological change and
also political change. Some of the most important envi-
ronmental progress now beingmadeis comingnotthrough
command-and-control regulations, but from a whole set
of other factors.  The Council's recommendation to de-
velop a new performance-based system represents the
recognition by all parties that, in view of these changes,
there is now a huge new opportunity to create a perfor-
mance-based system that moves the regulator back out-
side theplant boundaries. This is an opportunity to put the
focus back on what's most important, which is perfor-
mance,  to reduce transaction costs, and to get much more
protection for the money.  We also discussed the reality
that it is ineffective to look at one piece of the manufactur-
ing process and imagine that you can deal with a whole set
of issues of concern to society.
There is now a huge new opportunity to
create a performance-based system....
     The Council searched for ways to look at manufac-
turing processes from beginning to end or, as many people
putit, from cradle to cradle (from cradle to grave and back
to cradle again).  The corporate leaders on the Council
were increasingly excited about addressing that issue as an
                            inherent part of their
                            value system and their
                            recognition of what they
                            will need to provide to
                            society in the 21st cen-
	tury: services and prod-
                             ucts that meet broad so-
                             cietal needs. This is one
of the recommendations that the council expects to begin
to implement in the next several months.
      Another of the Council's recommendations con-
cerns market-based incentives.  This  recommendation
reflects the premise that we ought to put our incentives
where our objectives are. We ought to make it profitable
to be green. We ought to adjust our system so that there
is a constant financial pressure for better performance—
so that zero release becomes a goal toward which we are
always progressing even if it is never reached.
      When dealing withmarket incentives, of course, it's
useful to look at  the tax system.  This year the U.S.
Treasury will collect something like $ 1.4 trillion dollars in
federal taxes. About $1.2 trill ion will be taxes on labor and
investment, on wages and profits.  We tax cigarettes
because we want to discourage smoking. And we collect
$1.2 trillionin taxes on labor .and investment because—so
it seems—we don't want people to work and invest.  It
occurred to members of the Council that by moving that
tax burden aroundalittlebit, you couldputyour incentives
where your objectives are pretty effectively. After all,
$1.2 trillion gets people's attention.  The Council dis-
cussed the idea of a revenue-neutral shift in tax burden to
things we would like to discourage, such as waste.
      Still another recommendation concerns ecosystem
integrity, which is what this conference is about.  The
Council came to  see  that it is critically important to
recognize the link between ecosystems and communities.
The most effective examples of ecosystem management
that we saw were examples of communities choosing to
get engaged in the management process, along with all of
the stakeholder groups. These were examples of commu-
nity involvement in addressing the whole set of needs that
fit within the questions how and why are we going to
manage and protect an ecosystem? Many of us came to the
Council with long-term experience with and commitment
to national policy  and came away from the process with
deep respect for what can happen at the community level.
      We also came away with a recognition that the
process and the result are not separate—that it is the
collaborative process that makes results possible.
      In making policy recommendations, we are essen-
tially experimenting with policy. We don't really know
how ecosystems work. We don't really know what the
results of policy will be. That's no reason to stop in place.
We want change. The nation recognizes that things can't
go on the way they are. We wouldbemuchfreer to address

 Conference Proceedings
 the need for change if we could be confident that if an
 experiment didn't achieve the goals that we had set forth,
 we could move on and try something else.  Of course,
 that's extremely difficult in a confrontational setting, in
 which the parties withhold information from one another
 and are full of mistrust.  It turns out to be easy in  a
 cooperative setting. So the cooperative process and the
 ability to experiment and try new ideas go together.

    We ended up  a group of profound

    optimists,  convinced that it is

    perfectly possible to achieve the

    mission  of sustainability.

      Our report is a fundamentally optimistic document.
 We all concluded that we have not begun to exhaust the
 one type of resource which compounds so that the more
 we use it, the more we have of it. That is knowledge and
      We  ended up a group of profound optimists, con-
 vinced that it is perfectly possible to achieve the mission
 of sustainability. That may be why, when we handed in
 our report to the President, expecting it to meet our
 requirement, he said,  "That's good. Keep going."  He
 asked us to continue working through the end of the year,
 beginning an implementation process. That is now under-
 way, and we have gained some new members —represent-
 ing, in  particular, state and local interests, and small
 businesses. We' ve launched efforts with state and local
 governments. We're launching a stewardship initiative
 and a regional council initiative. And we're beginning to
 take up ideas for specific, on-the-ground things  that we
 might be able to do.
      So please, those of you who have stories to tell, tell
 us what's useful to do. TheCouncil will not be meaningful
 because we published this nice report—the first printing
 of which sold out in three days. It will be meaningful if it
has something to do with what actually happens in the
      Let me take this opportunity to say that we are up on
the World Wide Web athttp:\\www.whitehouse.gov\pcsd.
In the six months that we have left, we particularly want
to connect with state and local programs. We' d like to be
deluged with suggestions concerning sustainable devel-
opment and stories of initiatives that are working success-
fully. *
Note:  A joint presentation by both co-chairs of the President's
 Council, Jonathan Lash and David T. Buzzelli, was planned forthe
 Watershed '96 conference.  However, Mr. Buzzelli's plane was
 grounded in Minnesota due to dense fog, and Mr. Lash covered
 material that would have been presented by his fellow co-chair.

 Establishing a Common Goal: Sustaiiiability
 Monday, June 10,1996
Welcoming Remarks
The Honorable  Kurt L. Schmoke
Mayor of Baltimore, Maryland
        Good morning. It is a great pleasure to welcome
        you to Baltimore city. We are honored to have
        been chosen to host this important environmental
      I hope you have time to  see some of our city.
 Baltimore has much to offer, from old historic neighbor-
 hoods to this bustling downtown; from museums telling
 the story of the city's past to state-of-the-art laboratories
 exploring the sciences of
 the future. We're home to    	
 the Baltimore Orioles and
 their beautiful Camden
 Yards stadium, and now    citizens must be empowered to revitalize
                        We must reclaim our cities. . .
                         their own communities.
the Ravens NFL team, as
well  as world-renowned
     First, I'd like to
thank the U.S. EPA, the Water Environment Federation,
and the many other federal, state, and local agencies and
environmental groups who have planned this event.  A
special appreciation to Robert Perciasepe, one the
conference's co-hosts, who was such a good friend to
Baltimore while at the city's planning department, who
then moved on to help lead the Maryland Department of
Environment, and is now a top official at EPA. I'd also
like to commend our Governor,  Parris Glendening, who
has provided strong leadership in balancing environmen-
tal concerns with growth and developmentissuesinMary-
land.  These are the kinds of talented and committed
partners we have at the state and federal levels to help us
improve the quality of our environment—and thus the
quality of our lives here in Baltimore and throughout
     I have just returned from attending the United Na-
tions' Habitat II conference  on human settlements in
Istanbul, Turkey, where we focused on broad strategies of
how to create sustainable urban communities around the
world. I'm now more convinced than ever of the impor-
tance of gatherings like this—which bring professionals
and activists in the private, public, and non-profit worlds
together to share ideas, mobilize public support, and solve
common problems.
     I believe strongly that we must reclaim our cities
and communities block by block, and neighborhood by
neighborhood, and that citizens must be empowered to
revitalize their own communities. But it's also essential
for regional leaders and national experts like yourselves to
                        share information and strat-
                        egies on die pressing prob-
                        lems of our day, and to keep
                        us all focused on long-term
                        planning and solutions.
                             Like the international
                        conference on cities that I
                                                                         just attended, this water-
                                                                         shed conference deals with
                                                  environmental and developmental issues that will have
                                                  major consequences in our lives and our communities into
                                                  the next century. We can plan now to preserve and protect
                                                  the nation's most precious natural resources, as well as the
                                                  quality of life that they sustain. Or we can abdicate our
                                                  responsibilities to the planet, and reap untold disaster and
                                                  misery down the road.  I think it's pretty  clear which
                                                  mission this Watershed '96 conference—and all of you—
                                                  have chosen to undertake.
                                                      I'd like to talk briefly about some of the ways that
                                                  Baltimore city has promoted progress in this area.
                                                      Baltimore and  Maryland, for  example, depend
                                                  heavily on the Chesapeake Bay as a source of both income
                                                  and recreation (and, I might add, an inspirational source of
                                                  natural beauty). With thousands of Maryland families
                                                  depending on the Chesapeake for their livelihood, we
                                                  know we must protect our wetlands and the wildlife that
                                                  they nurture. And it's imperative that we also encourage
                                                  the development of industries that don't pollute our envi-
                                                      These are the kinds of challenges in which coopera-
                                                  tion and collaboration are essential for success. Streams,

Conference Proceedings
lakes, and coastal areas know no formal boundaries. So
we need to work together regionally, across city, county,
and state lines, if we are to effectively protect the air we
breathe and the water we drink.
      One of those regional efforts in which the city is
taking an active role is the multi-state effort to protect the
Chesapeake Bay.  As a signatory to a pact to be a key
partner in this effort,  the city  has contributed to the
Chesapeake Bay tributary strategies in a number of ways.
Our efforts include reducing toxic waste in the Baltimore
Harbor, enhancing storm drain management, and improv-
ing our waste treatment plants.  We continue to work
toward reducing the pollutants in our streams and rivers
that flow into the Chesapeake.
     A related regional effort, which we celebrated just
a few weeks ago, is a federal, state, and  local effort that
will study how to improve the Gwynns Falls watershed,
which runs through Baltimore county and Baltimore city,
and empties into the Patapsco Ri ver' s middle branch. The
city is sharing the cost of the study with the  U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. This effort could eventually restore
150 acres of land, many miles of streams, and up to 25
acres of wetlands.
     Many of you will make a site visit to  one of our
urban projects that involves reclaiming some of the city's
abandoned open spaces. Baltimore's Druid Hill Park and
Herring Run Park are among our urban resources initia-
tives (URT s), aimed at helping neighborhoods take back
the city's open areas. These efforts include community
forestry, park planning and management, job training, and
environmental education for our inner-city youth. Also
included is a natural resource management training course
for the employees of Baltimore's Department of Recre-
ation and Parks.
     The city is  also developing the Gwynns Falls
greenway, which would establish a walking  and biking
trail system across the city, linking neighborhoods to-
gether by following the stream. Community support is
growing for this "greening" of Baltimore.
     To me, one of the most important aspects of these
urban projects is to gain the interest and  commitment of
the young people in our cities to get involved in protecting
our natural resources.  It's particularly important, I be-
lieve, for the younger generation to see the connections
between cleaning up the storm drains or  streams in their
communities, or planting a tree, and a cleaner, healthier,
safer environment for everyone in the future.
     By the year 2025, almost  5 billion people, or 62
percent of the global population, will live in urban areas.
If this planet is  to survive, there is an  urgent need to
educate urban residents about conserving and protecting
the world around them, and mobilize them to be active
partners in cleaning up the environment.
     We are fortunate here in Baltimore to have world-
renowned educational institutions like Baltimore's Na-
tional Aquarium and the Maryland Science Center, which
have been magnets for young people and families to
explore the wonders and excitement of nature, and which
also underscore the theme of conservation and environ-
mental protection.
     A final example of Baltimore city's commitment to
the environment stands a few blocks from here on the
Inner Harbor—theChristopher Columbus Center—which
I hope you will visit.  Created through a public/private
partnership, it will be the nation's leading research facility
studying marine biotechnology. That is, learning how to
use aquatic life to develop new drugs, foods, and materi-
als. It will also offer educational opportunities for scien-
tists and inner-city children alike to further explore their
underwater universe.  The center will make a strong case
that investing in the environment is good both for business
and for maintaining a higher quality of life.
     I wish all of you a highly successful and productive
conference. Your work here in Baltimore will be critical
to this  region's and this nation's ability to protect and
preserve our most precious resources.  To quote from
Psalm24: "TheEarthistheLord's."Thatistrue. Andwe
must protect the only Earth the Lord has given us. Thank
you. «>

Establishing a Common Goal: Sustdinability
Monday, June 10,1996
Welcoming Remarks
The Honorable Parris N. Glendening
Governor of Maryland
                     As suburbs sprawl out, there is less and  less
                     sense of community.
       Good morning! Let me welcome you to Maryland,
       to Baltimore, and to this outstanding conference.
       I hope your time here will be productive and
exciting, and a learning experience.
     Being Governor
of Maryland brings a
lot of hard decisions
and a lot of criticism.
But it also comes with    	
some  very special
privileges. One of the
privileges is being able to work with people to protect the
state's greatest treasure, and that is our natural resources
and, in particular, the Chesapeake Bay.
     The Chesapeake Bay, as everyone here knows, is
the nation's largest estuary. In many ways, it is the heart
and soul of Maryland. The bay and its tributaries, the
major rivers, are an extraordinarily important part of our
public policy decisions from almost every perspective.
For many Marylanders, the Potomac, the Patuxent, and the
Susquchanna are part of our heart and soul not just on a
public policy level, but on a personal level as well. For
example, on the weekend before last, my son Raymond,
who is now 16, andlwentoutrockfishingonthebay.That
experience is something  that means  a great deal in our
family.  We want to make absolutely  sure that the oppor-
tunity is there for my son's children and his children's
children. The only way Marylanders are going to achieve
that is by working together. I know the same situation is
true in state after state.
     In Maryland, we have come to understand that you
cannothaveastrong economy without a thriving environ-
mental effort. Thetwo—economy and the environment—
go hand in hand, and we can do both  well. I think that is
a given. And I would go one step further and say that a
really good environmental test area  such as the Chesa-
peake Bay is in fact in part what a good economy is about
as well. Today, we're here to look at different visions of
the future—initiatives that protect our natural resources
 and promote a sustained economy. In many ways, Mary-
 land can serve as amicrocosm of the challenges we all face
 in America—and also as an example of how best to
 overcome those challenges.  We've been doing some
                           exciting things here that
                           people come from else-
                           where to see.
                                Let me just  put
	things in perspective
                           very       quickly.
                           Maryland's population
 is expected to grow by 20 percent during the next 25 years:
 from 5 million to 6 million people. If the growth patterns
 that have been in place over the past 25 years do  not
 change, consider what will happen during these next 25

    •  We will virtually abandon our great and historic
       urban centers, such as Baltimore city.

    •  We will consumemorethan0«e-/za/f/m'ffio«acres
       of farmland.

    •  We will consume nearly one-quarter million acres
       of forests, which are absolutely critically impor-
       tant to the water quality of our rivers and bays.

    •  And we may well see the future that Judge Otto
       Kerner warned America about 25 years ago. Re-
       garding race in America, he talked about  the
       potential for two separate societies, a prospect we
       might very well face if we do not do something
       about the direction of growth: one wealthy and
       prospering in growing suburbs and outer suburbs,
       and one poor and declining; one with jobs and
       hopes for  families, and the other increasingly
       jobless; one having huge new homes on large
       estates, and the other having large collections of

 Conference Proceedings
      None of us wants that scenario. From the perspec-
 tive of what our society will look like and from the
 perspective of what our environment will be, we must
 make commitments to change. Fortunately, we in Mary-
 land have recognized that we must change the way we
 grow and we must work harder to safeguard our environ-
 ment. Ourapproachis not based onaseries of governmen-
 tal orders or top-down mandates, but rather in large part on
 the recognition that citizensmust be involved in what must
 be done.
      Let me mention some of the reasons why we are
 taking that approach. Consider that virtually every Mary-
 land citizen and business lies within one-quarter mile—a
 5-minute walk—of a stream, or creek, or river, which
 flows directly into the Chesapeake Bay. Every Maryland
 citizen and business impacts the bay. Every Maryland
 citizen and business has a direct interest in protecting the
 bay, not only for aesthetic or environmental reasons, but
 also for the well-being of our economy.
      Consider that recreational boating in Maryland
 employs over 18,000 people and is worth $ 1 billion a year,
 that recreational fishing
 adds another $1  billion a
 year to our economy, that
 the crab harvest alone in
 Maryland is almost $100
 million annually, and that
 tourism adds billions to our
 economy. When you con-
 sider these facts, it is clear
 that protecting and pre-
 serving our natural re-
 sources is in fact vital for our economic success.
      But we must recognize as well that this is not just
 about the economy. We must protect the environment for
 its own sake. We are all of us stewards of this land, and we
 have a serious responsibility for the air our children
 breathe, for the water they drink, for the quality of life that
 they will enjoy in the future.
     Part of our approach therefore is to involve people,
 and that's why  we  appointed the state's  10 tributary
 teams—312 Maryland citizens who volunteered to help
 implement the state's tributary  strategies of reducing
 nutrients in the bay; coordinating and encouraging the
 participation of citizens, businesses, and the agricultural
 community; and promoting a sense of stewardship among
 our citizens. Our tributary teams are the local stakehold-
 ers, people who  will inspire and educate their fellow
 citizens about what  we must do to preserve our great
 resources. The members of these teams share with me the
 understanding that success can only come with a coopera-
 tive effort between government, business, and people.
     Our tributary teams are unique in the nation in that
 we were the first state to adopt the large-scale, state-wide,
 watershed-wide approach to coordinating nutrient reduc-
 tion efforts. It is a bottom-up, community-up effort, and
 we are having an impact.  One  quick example of the
 success we are having in fostering a sense of partnership:
 Farmers in Maryland have voluntarily put over 700,000
 acres of their land under nutrient management programs.
To put this in perspective, Maryland has more land under
We must use the resources of government
to create a series of major incentives and
disincentives to direct growth back to
existing urbanized areas.
 nutrient management than any other state in the country.
 That is a record of which Maryland farmers can be proud,
 and it is an outstanding example of how, if you involve
 people from the community level up, you can indeed have
 great success.
      We are rethinking, right now, how to deal with the
 most fundamental issue of water quality protection, and
 thatis land use and land-use management. Weallknow the
 advantages  of pursuing a forward-thinking strategy of
 growth management for revitalizing existing communi-
 ties.  This  is true whether you are talking about big
 communities such as Baltimore city or small communities
 such as  Cumberland, Maryland. The key issues here
 include  preserving our open space and having viable
 centers where economic growth can take place.
      If  we can pursue more aggressively a strategy of
 well-managed growth, there are obvious environmental
 benefits, such as protecting farmland, preserving forests,
 and conserving wetlands.  There are also  obvious eco-
 nomic advantages when you think of the hundreds of
 millions of dollars that we spend on new roads, new
                           sidewalks, new water and
                           sewer lines,  and  new
                           schools to accommodate
                           growth always moving
                           outward.  There  is also
                           something less obvious,
                           but I hope we will all be
                           paying more attention to
                           it, and that is the need to
                           foster a spirit of commu-
                           nity, to bring back a sense
 of community.  One  of the things that is very clear all
 across this country is  that as suburbs sprawl out, there is
 less and less sense of community. The suburbs are a place
 where we go to sleep and to house our family and to reside
 for a while.  But without neighbors who know neighbors,
 without a sense of heritage—a sense that "we  belong
 here"—we have lost something  important.
      We also know that planning is not enough; tributary
 teams are not enough; community  involvement is not
 enough. If we are going to be successful, we must use the
 resources of government to create a series of major incen-
 tives and disincentives to direct growth back to existing
 urbanized areas. In Maryland, we are making the neces-
 sary changes to move in that direction. For example,
 Maryland participates in a significant way in the school
 construction formula.  In this administration, we have
 made a major change so that the first priority for school
 construction is for modernizing and expanding existing
 schools  in existing communities.   We want the  best
 schools to be in our existing urbanized areas and not, as
 has been  the practice in the past, for the newest and best
 schools to be built to accommodate growth which moves
 outward.  In the past, only 40 percent of school construc-
 tion funding went to renovate and modernize older schools
 in our older communities; now 80 percent will go to our
 older schools.
     We have created a major Neighborhood Business
Development Program to bring jobs into existing commu-
nities. We have just  adopted, as part of our economic

                                                                                          Watershed '96
development program, a jobs-creation tax credit. You get
twice the tax credit, however, if those jobs are brought to
targeted neighborhood revitalization areas.  And we just
changed our Department of Transportation budget, so that
for the first time the state Department of Transportation
works with smaller communities, when state roads run
through thosecommunities.onmatters such as sidewalks,
curbs , and gutters, so that these communities will be active
partners in revitalization efforts.
     All of this, we believe, will still not be enough. We
will be working with legislative leaders next year on a
whole series of additional incentives and disincentives to
make the economy so strong that private investors will
find better investment deals— to build, to bring jobs, to
renovate houses, whatever the endeavor— in already ex-
isting communities than is available by buying farmland
and developing it. I believe we can do this using means
ranging from Brownfields to tax credits to a variety of
additional Incentives. We are very excited about the input
we arc getting from the public on these incentives and the
positive changes we see coming.
     Le.t me note,  lastly, that while you are here in
Mary-land I hope you will take some of die tours that have
been arranged for you, and that you will consider some of
the experiments that are going on here. For example, you
might take alook at the impact of sand and gravel mining
on the stream enhancement project at White Marsh. You
might  drop in  on the Chesapeake Farms Sustainable
Agricultural ProjectonMaryland's historic Has ternShore.
You will have a chance to see social revitalization tiirough
ecological restoration at me Druid Hill/Herring Run Park
tour. You can inspect die stormwater management work
going on in Wheaton Branch; you can see first-hand how
levels  of government can make  a difference witii die
world-class Kenilworth marsh restoration.
     These are exciting projects, and tiiey are on die
cutting edge.  We are experimenting; we know tiiere is no
one answer. We invite you to share in die process and also
to share ideas witii us on ways to make it better.  That is
truly what tiiis conference is all about— sharing with one
other— and mat is why wehaveour entire teamhere today.
It is about sharing so that we can all prosper, so tiiat we can
all have the environment we want, and so mat our children
and our grandchildren will be able to know die healtii and
environmental benefits tiiat we have had.  We owe it to
tiicm to pass on an environment  tiiat is as good as— or
beUerman— what we inherited. I believe this conference
will contribute to tiiat outcome. Thank you very much. <•

 Getting Down to Busin^ss-&
 Tuesday, June 11,199&
Keynote Address
Ralph Gross!
President, American Farmland Trust and
Member, National Forum on Nonpoint-Source Pollution
                    The greatest liability -we leave
                    is not the national debt but the
      The conference brochure described this gathering
      as "an interactive forum on the progress and future
      of watershed management." A recent conference
on wetlands management, another on controlling urban
sprawl, yet others on managing ecosystems, public lands,
and old growth forests, property rights, and the appropri-
ate role of government agencies in land management are
a regular occur-
rence in our world
today.   What do
they all have in
common? They are
all about how we
allocate and care for
our natural resources. This increasing interest in land use
is a symptom of a society in conflict over the allocation of
finite resources.
     In a very ad hoc manner we are engaged in a national
discussion about the use of land. Very fundamental tenets
of our culture are on the table—questions about how we
determine our priorities as a society; and about how those
priorities square with the rights and responsibilities of
individual land owners and those of the larger community.
The situation could easily be characterized as the compe-
tition for land—a competition that is increasing at an
exponential rate, fueled by three inter-related factors:

    • An overall increase in population: While U.S.
      population is not increasing at the rate of develop-
      ing countries, it is still expected to nearly double in
      our lifetime—500 milli on people by the middle of
      the next century.

    • The  redistribution of that population: The post
      World  War II period can be characterized as the
      "suburbanization of America." As our citizenry
      has escaped to the suburbs and now the exurbs, the
      use of land has become less efficient—resulting in
      fewer persons per square mile and the conversion
our grandchildren
state of 'the land....
of millions of acres of this nation's best farmland
to housing tracts. Consider, for example, some
basic statistics from a study done by the Northern
Illinois Planning Council, which presents a 20-
year snapshot—from 1970 to 1990—of the Chi-
cago Metropolitan area. During those two de-
cades the metropolitan area population grew by
                       just four percent.
                        During that same pe-
                        riod, however, land
                        use for residential
                        purposes grew by 46
                        percent.  And virtu-
                        ally all of that land
was in a watershed!

The changing values of that population:  As
America has become more suburban, its  values
have changed as well. The use of land for tradi-
tional economic pursuits seems less important to
many than the more difficult to quantify amenities
associated with land. I am speaking of things like
open space,  wildlife habitat, wetlands and, of
course, watersheds. For example, the Grossi fam-
ily farm happens to be in Marin County, 30 miles
north of San Francisco on the urban edge . From
our dairy bam, I can see homes that sell for $1.5
million on quarter-acre lots.  Conversely,  subur-
banites sipping Chardonnay on their decks can
look up the valley into the watershed. What they
see and perceive is not the production of milk and
beef but open space, not my farm or my neighbor's
or my uncle's farm, but their open space.  They
expect that open area to provide amenities like
wildlife habitat, wetlands, and high quality water,
all things that are increasing in value in  public

                                                                                          Watershed '96
     These changing expectations of our society are
further complicated by the fact that most of this competi-
tion for the use or allocation of land is played out on
privately owned land—the largest portion of which is
agricultural. The benefits of protecting these values often
accrue not to the landowner but disproportionately to the
community at large. It is no wonder then that this compe-
tition erupts into outright conflict.
     Sociologists describe this kind of change as a para-
digm shift. The land use paradigm is shifting, but the
frameworks by which we adjust to those shifts are not
evolving fast enough to keep up. Traditionally,  broad
societal natural resource goals  have been achieved by
increasing regulation or using public funds to protect land
outright by acquiring it for parks, open space, and other
public uses.  The limitations on these techniques are
increasingly evident—fiscal austerity is already limiting
the ability of government agencies at all levels to acquire
land. And the property rights movement in all its manifes-
tations is further limiting the political will to use regula-
tory powers.
     Additionally, our political system often increases
the conflict by providing incentives to favor one behavior
over another, then failing to adjust those incentives over
time as societal values change—leaving those affected
with very abrupt adjustments to make (example: draining
wet farmland to promote food production).
     For watershed management, the inconsistency in
government policies is particularly problematic. A wide
range of federal  and state subsidies, from infrastructure
improvements and tax free financing  to the mortgage
interest deduction, promote urban sprawl—making pub-
lic and private conservation efforts far more expensive
than they otherwise would be.  Or, in the case of farm
programs, payments that get capitalized into land values
effectively cause the taxpayer to pay twice—once to
inflate the land value and a second time to provide incen-
tives for conservation.
      But even when we can come to agreement over
resource allocationpriorities, we continue to struggle over
how to share the cost—especially when those who benefit
include the larger community and unborn future genera-
tions. The greatest liability we leave our grandchildren is
not the national debt but the state of the land—sprawling
subdivisions that will have to be supported with future tax
dollars, shifting food production onto marginal lands and
the loss of biological  diversity.
      To correct for this developing tragedy we awk-
wardly apply the traditional tools of regulation and acqui-
sition. But when regulation is used it tends to shift the cost
to the land owner. Compensation transfers the cost to the
      Clearly, both have responsibility and generally are
willing to shoulder a fair share.
      What is the proper balance?
      What is fair for both the individual landowner and
the broader community?
      The new paradigm of land use needs a new frame-
work for action.  Buried in the contentious debate over
land use and property rights are some evolving answers.
As in the early stages of any major conflict, the solutions
are not yet well refined. Many of you are involved in these
new experiments which are rooted in an understanding of
four simple principles:

    •  The future of land conservation hi this country will
       largely focus on private lands.

    •  The ability of government to intervene will be

    •  Mechanisms for sharing the cost of stewardship of
       our natural resources between the private land
       owner and the public at large must be developed.

    •  Private landowners have an inherent interest in
       land stewardship.

     The National Nonpoint Source Forum report iden-
tified these themes and the conservation provisions of the
recently signed farm bill  (the Federal Agricultural Im-
provement and Reform Act of 1996) included them.
Assuming Congress follows through  with its commit-
ments, as commodity programs are phased out over the
next six years,  a  comprehensive,  well-balanced set of
conservation programs built on the principle of shared
responsibility will be phased in. They include:

    •  Farmland  Protection Program—The 1996 Farm
       Bill establishes a farmland protection program,
       $35 million hi funding from the Commodity Credit
       Corporation. The program authorizes the agricul-
       ture secretary to purchase conservation easements
       to  protect  farmland by matching state funding.
       Although a modest program, it represents the first
       significant step in providing federal assistance to
       local communities for farmland protection.

    •  National Natural Resources Conservation Foun-
       dation—The farm bill authorizes the establish-
       ment of a nonprofit private foundation to sponsor
       and advance innovative solutions for conservation
       and environmental problems  through effective
       partnerships with state, local, and private organi-

    •  Conservation Reserve Program—The CRP pays
       farmers to  take highly erodible land out of produc-
       tion. The  1996 Farm Bill reauthorizes CRP with
       a cap of 36.4 million acres.  New enrollments,
       emphasizing broader environmental benefits, will
       be accepted in the program as long as they do not
       exceed the established cap. This provision should
       allow CRP to become a more effective conserva-
       tion program by enrolling the most environmen-
       tally sensitive land wherever it is located and by
       encouraging some of the highly productive land
       now in CRP back into production.

 Conference Proceedings
     •  Wetlands Reserve  Program—The WRP  pays
       farmers to restore wetland areas on farm acreage.
       It is reauthorized through 2002 with a cap of
       975,000 acres. The program is divided into  three
       parts with one third of the land enrolled in perma-
       nent easements, one third in 30-year or less ease-
       ments, and one third in cost share agreements.

     •  Environmental Quality Incentives Program—The
       1996 Farm Bill creates an Environmental Quality
       Incentives Program (EQIP) to provide financial,
       technical, and educational assistance to producers
       struggling with the most serious soil,  water, and
       other  resource-related problems.  The program
       will be funded at $200 million annually through
       2002 except for 1996, when $ 130 million is autho-
       rized.  The program is structured so that half of
       available funds will be targeted to correct prob-
       lems associated with livestock operations.  The
       program is designed to tackle issues such  as
       nonpoint source pollution, including fertilizer,
       manure, and  soil runoffs  into watersheds and
       waterways.  EQIP will help farmers  adopt and
       install conservation practices through a cost-shar-
       ing mechanism that will specifically target envi-
       ronmentally sensitive lands.

     •  State  Technical  Committees—The 1996 Farm
       Bill authorizes the broadening of state technical
       committees to include representatives  from non-
       profit groups,  agricultural  producers,  and
       agribusiness.  The role of the state technical com-
       mittees has been further expanded to oversee
       EQIP administration.

     •  Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program—The 1996
       Farm Bill reserves  $50 million of Conservation
       Reserve Program funding for a Wildlife Habitat
       Incentives Program. This program is designed to
       helpfarmersadoptwildhfehabitatprotection tech-
       niques and management practices to help preserve
       and improve wildlife habitat on farmland.

     •  Floodplain Easements—Related to the WRP, the
       1996 Farm Bill authorizes floodplain easements
       to be purchased under the Emergency Watershed
       Protection Program.

     These programs are not the final answer to the
natural resource challenges facing us, but they represent
a very good beginning and an opportunity to test our
ability as a nation to  come to deal with the task. They
represent an important step in the evolution of the next
generation of public policies that meet the needs of both
landowners and  taxpayers. Ten years from now farm
programs could very well reflect a new contract with the
American public—a contract whereby public support for
fanners is based not on the crops they produce  but on the
environmental products produced on the farm. Each of
you should be working on the local and regional policy
counterparts to these programs to position your commu-
nity to make the most efficient use of precious public

      It is well past time for the hyperbole and extremist
rhetoric to give way  to reasoned discussion over the
legacy we leave our children. As a landowner, I am ready
to begin the discussion and I know that many of my fellow
farmers are as well.  As a taxpayer, I want to end the
needless subsidy of land abuse and to improve efficiency
of conservation programs.  We have the ability and the
institutional processes to turn thecompetitionforlandinto
a consensus for stewardship.»!»

Getting Down fo Business—Frameworks far Action
Tuesday, June 11,1996                    ^
Opening Remarks
Larry  Selzer
Vice President, The Conservation Fund and
Director, National Forum on Nonpoint-Source Pollution
                     Americans now want a much broader dialogue
                     on the relationship between economics and
       Yogi Berra, who is one of my favorite philosophers,
       once said, "The future ain't what it used to be." I
       think that this single sentence aptly wraps up
much of our thinking about the environmental movement
today. We're witnessing a fundamental shift in the envi-
ronmental movement—ashiftmarkedby decentralization
at all levels, a shift from government to the private sector,
a change in perspective of the American voter,  and the
emergence of new technologies at rapid-fire pace. If we
look back over the last 25  years of the environmental
movement back to
the first Earth Day,
we see some remark-
able changes.   The
first Earth Day was
ushered in by Rachel
Carson's   Silent
Spring, and it repre-
sented the first tidal wave of the environmental movement
in this country. It was a tidal wave bom out of the linkage,
for the first time, of environmental quality with human
     We've had a lot of successes since then. We have
cleaner air. We have cleaner water. Industry uses less raw
materials and is more cognizant of the waste it produces.
Citizens are more environmentally conscious. There are
50,000 pieces of environmental legislation on the federal,
stale, and local books. There are 10,000 environmental
nonprofit organizations in  this  country, one new one
formed each day. Nearly 80 percent of American people
now identify themselves as environmentalists.
     These are remarkable successes.  But this funda-
mental shift has brought some key questions to light.  In
the first place, Americans  now want a much  broader
dialogue on therelationshipbetween economics and envi-
ronment. They are questioning centralization at all levels
and in some cases demanding local control.  And, as
Jonathan Lash told us  all yesterday, they are beginning to
speak with a new language: the language of sustainability.
      With these tilings in mind, I see two great challenges
 before us. First, how can we build the capacity of local
 organizations and local people to effectively deal with the
 complex environmental issues we all face? Second, how
 can we merge enviromnentalism with the free-enterprise
 system to achieve our goals?
      For the past 25 years, we've seen two powerful
 forces in America. Like two streams flowing across the
 land, the free-enterprise system and the environmental
 movement have followed different courses. It is now time
                            to blend them together
 	   into  one mighty river
                            of action. This is more
                            difficult than saying it
                            up here at the podium.
                            To accomplish this, we
	   must develop new
                            skills; wemustdevelop
                            new tools; and we must
 learn a new language. I suggest that watersheds are the
 place to start. Our rivers and streams define them clearly
 by geography. Perhaps they will be the common ground
 on which we build this new framework for conservation.
      What will the new framework look like? Let me
 give you five ideas as a start. First, this framework will be
 based on collaboration, not confrontation. Second, it will
 fully integrate economic reality into environmental pro-
 tection. Third, I believe it will be led by the private sector
 and the nonprofit community, not by government. Fourth,
 it will be technology-driven. And lastly, I believe it will
 be community-based.
      How will we get there? This gathering over the next
 several days is a start. We are all here at Watershed '96 to
 discover—to discover new ideas and new people,  to
 develop new relationships. I believe this discovery pro-
 cess is the key.
      In 1994,  the Conservation Fund and the National
 Georgraphic Society began their own process of discov-
 ery, which led to the National Forum on Nonpoint-Source

 Conference Proceedings	

 Pollution. The Forum was an unprecedented collabora-
 tion of industy, government, and nonprofits.  It was
 chaired by Governor Engler of Michigan and Governor
 Dean of Vermont. Serving with them were seven corpo-
 rate CEOs JFive environmental CEOs, the Mayor of Balti-
 more, the Secretary of Resources for the state of Califor-
 nia, and three Cabinet members of the federal government
 as ex officio. The goal of the forum was to identify and
 implementinnovativenonregulatory solutions tononpoint-
 source pollution based on three primary strategies: eco-
 nomic incentives, voluntary initiatives, and education.
 We specifically carved out the nonregulatory side of the
 ledger in order to complement the regulatory framework
 and to bring people to the table. I believe we had enormous
      Out of the forum emerged 25 key demonstration
 projects now operating across the land that represent a
 menu of activities and organizations and communities,
 some of which we'll hear about during the panel.  We
 raised nearly $ 12 million in  public and private capital to
 back these projects and get them going. In addition to the
 25 projects,  we've launched four major new initiatives.
 First, in partnership with the Council of Great Lakes
 governors, and with the leadership of Governor Engler
 and his peers, we have launched a major new watershed
 initiative in the Great Lakes Basin, focusing on urban and
 urbanizing areas, those lands in transition as development
 approaches.  Second, in partnership withEPA and the U.S.
 Geological Survey, we have developed a watershed ad-
 dress system on the Internet.  Soon, anyone with access to
 the World Wide Web will be able to type in their zip code
 and pull down a nested series of graphics representing the
 watersheds in which they live.  This will be a very
 powerful tool  for educating all Americans.  Third, in
 partnership with EPA and the state of Pennsylvania, a
 state-wide nonpoint source forum focusing on watersheds
 will be launched in Pennsylvania. I believe this is the first
 state-wide forum in the country and represents true lead-
 ership at the state level. And lastly, in partnership with CF
 Industries, one of the members of the Nonpoint-Source
 Forum, we have launched the nation's firstnational water-
 shed awards. These awards will recognize corporate and
 community excellence in watershed protection.
      What  we're really talking about is conservation
 leadership.  What is it, how do we foster it, how do we
 encourage it  ? Conservation leadership today is no longer
 a matter of merely alerting the populace of the problems
 that we create through insensitive management of re-
 sources. It's  now about good science, careful formulation
 of policy, realignment of economics and ethics. National
polls tell us repeatedly that people are ready for leadership
in conservation, and that conservationists are found in all
 sectors of society.   I think you'll  agree after hearing
today's speakers. <»

Getting Down to Business—Frameworks for Action
Tuesday, June 11,1996
Response  to Watershed  Challenges
Panel Discussion
 Trudy Coxe

 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Affairs

 My job is to speak witha state official's hat on, and the one
 tiling I've learned as the Secretary of Environmental
 Affairs for the state of Massachusetts is that there are two
 ingredients to success when it comes to credible state
 action on the watershed front:

     •  First, there has to be a belief in the power of
       partnerships—particularly with watershed asso-
       ciations, businesses, and local officials.

     •  Second,  there has to be a belief in the view that
       government's job is to serve the watershed.

      I want to welcome all of you to the wonderful world
 of the Ncponset watershed. Highway signs—more than
 two dozen of them—were put up by the Massachusetts
 Department  of Transportation on all of the key roadways
 leading into  the  Neponset. The message is simple: "En-
 tering Neponsct River Watershed:  Communities Con-
 nected By Water." And this simple message has done
 more to reinforce, publicize, and make people ponder
 what a watershed is than almost any other.
      Immediately south of Boston, the Neponset is—
 most definitely—an urban watershed, made up of 14
 towns and cities. The Neponset is one of 27 basins in the
 Commonwealth, and, despite its urban character, it is still
 a very pretty area providing rich habitat to an assortment
 offish, birds, and yes, people.
      Several years ago, Governor Weld announced the
 start of a special project focussed on the Neponset. The
 goal was to identify—with the assistance of all of the
 environmental agencies  in the state and with the advice
 and counsel of  local officials, watershed organizations
and businesses—what the "real" environmental obstacles
to cleaning up the watershed were.
     Hundreds of meetings helped produce a HOT SPOT
map—red blocks signify where serious pollution prob-
lems exist; yellow blocks are areas in danger.
     Stream Teams were trained to do shoreline surveys.
     Andpeople were mobilized to go' out on foot and by
canoe to gather first-hand information about the river.
     A group calling themselves Smelt Stewards—in-
volving 200 volunteers a month—began to read stream
gauges and do water-quality monitoring, and teachers and
students were enlisted to focus their science studies on the
Neponset—making science in their classrooms real be-
cause it involved real issues.
     There was an outpouring of help.
     The increased level of understanding of the river
laid the groundwork for a tremendous amount of action in
a very short period of time.
     Let me give you six successes:
     Success Story #1: A 15-year simmering debate
over the cleanup of a hazardous waste site resulted in a
legal agreement for the site to be cleaned up. The owners
of this site are so enthusiastic about the watershed project
that they have set aside for protection Willet Pond, which
they donated to the Neponset River Watershed Associa-
tion (NRWA).
     Success Story #2: Norwood, Massachusetts, offi-
cials voluntarily agreed to fix an illegal sewage connec-
tion to a stormline.  Before their action, fecal coliform
levels were in the 150,000-240,000 colonies/ml range.
After the repair, the levels are down to 40,000. And
there's continuing repair work occurring to get that num-
ber even lower.
      Success Story #3: The owners of the most popular
racetrackin the state—locatedat the head of the Neponset—
have embarked upon an aggressive effort to control horse
manure runoff into the river.
      Success Story #4: And shad from the Connecticut
River have  been transplanted to the  Neponset with a

Conference Proceedings
commitment from the state to put a fishway at Baker's
Dam to restore anadromous fish runs.
     Success Story #5:  At Mill Brook, a stormwater
management plan has been developed to collect and treat
stormwater overflows.
     And, finally, Success Story #6: The lower portion
of the Neponset has been designated an area of critical
environmental concern (ACEC).  It is the  first urban
ACEC in the state's history, and its designation as an
ACEC means that it will receive a higher level of scrutiny
when development decisions are being made.
     We' ve learned a lot from our Neponset experiment.
     We' ve learned that people know a lot  about their
neighborhoods, and if called upon can be great assets to
providing an even better knowledge of the water we're
trying to protect.
     Based on the progress made in the Neponset, we
have—in consultation with a large number of watershed
associations, business leaders, and regular people—de-
cided to take the Neponset statewide.
     This decision has required all who are involved in
the watershed approach to change their thinking.
     Two challenges stand out most prominently:
     Obstacle 1: How to structure the expertise embod-
ied in state government in such a way that every penny of
taxpayers' dollars goes towards improved water quality,
better land management, and better neighborhoods.
     There are five departments inmy Secretariat. I have
to confess that they don't always work together as well as
they could So, by executive fiat, we' ve established cross-
agency basin teams for each one of the 27 basins.  Each
team is made up of one person from the five departments.
     Remember, our motto is that government's job is to
serve the watershed.
     The teams are developing—withhelpfromlocals—
action plans; they' re meeting regularly; and, I hope, they' re
finding that their colleagues in other agencies aren' t so
bad, after all.
     Obstacle 2:  If government chooses to empower
local watershed associations to a greater degree, are these
associations prepared to pitch in—with a lot of energy?
     Massachusetts is blessed with a tradition of strong
environmental protection. There are more than 100 well-
established watershed groups, most of them run by volun-
     To jumpstart the ability of these  groups to do the
education, outreach, and problem solving that they're so
good at, we convinced the legislature to include  $2.5
million inarecently passed $400M Open Space Bond Bill.
The $2.5M is  specifically for grants to non-profits for
capacity building and technical assistance. Thefirstround
of grants will be awarded this fall.
     My five minutes of fame are up. There's much more
to share.  But I hope this gives you an idea of how our
Neponset pilot has helped us define watershed manage-
ment for the entire state of Massachusetts.
Charlene Poste

Environmental Policy Representative, Squaxin Island
Tribe and
Member, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

      The Native American Tribes in Washington state
have created a watershed protection strategy called the
Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program. Through this
program, we are working with state and local govern-
ments and building partnerships for protecting our water-
sheds. These efforts reflect a holistic approach that has
many roots in our Tribal history and culture.
      In 1492, America was discovered—or so they say.
In 1642,aNarragansett Indian man named Miantunnomoh
spoke of the degradation of watersheds and water quality.
He said, 'You know our fathers had plenty of deer and
skins and our plains were full of game and turkeys, and our
coves andrivers were full of fish. But brothers, since these
Englishmen have seized our country, they have cut down
the grass with scythes, and the trees with axes. Their cows
and horses eat up the grass, and their hogs spoil our bed of
clams ...."
      In 1683, under a tree by the Delaware River, Will-
iam Penn signed his famous peace treaty with the Indians.
Significantly, in this peace treaty, it was stipulated thatfor
every five acres that are logged, one acre would remain
forested. This kept peace between Indians and white men
for 50 years.
      As time went by,  the Indians  were continually
forced inland. For example, if you look at a sequence of
U.S. maps at 30- or 40-year intervals between 1790 to
1890, you can see the drastic shrinkage of Tribal lands so
that only widely scattered reservations remain by  1890.
      In 1854, the United States entered into treaty nego-
tiations to secure property for the westward immigration
stampede that was then occurring.  The result was the
Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854; many other treaties
followed in the northwest.  Tribes including my  Tribal
ancestors in Washington state ceded vast amounts of land,
but did reserve the right of Tribal existence and retained so
far as possible a traditional way of life based on hunting
and gathering.
      The tribes of the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality
Program are water people. Historically, salmon has been
very vital to Tribal existence. For our ancestors, salmon
was breakfast and probably lunch and dinner. Clams and
oysters were also very important. We depended  on  the
natural resources for everything we used in  our daily
living. We gathered grass from wetlands and used it in
building portable mat nouses and in making basketry. We
stored fish, berries, and medicinal herbs in baskets. In
addition to salmon, my people used water fowl as part of
their subsistence diet; we also used the feathers of water
fowl in our garments. Our tribes have an ancestral history
of inter-tribal trade; we had inter-tribal trade routes span-
ning from Washington state into the Midwest.
      Salmon are still very important to our people. We
have  salmon ceremonies honoring the coming  of  the
salmon. When the salmon first show up in our streams and

                                                                                          Watershed '96
rivers, we have a ceremony to show our thankfulness. In
Tribal legend, we have stories of salmon being part of us,
the salmon being our brother. Tribal people view wildlife
as though they are other nations of people.
      In the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program,
when we are getting down to business and frameworks for
action to protect our watersheds, we try to instill aholistic
view  in the foundations of our work. The holistic ap-
proach is tied to traditional Tribal teachings concerning
body, mind, and spirit.
      We believe that we come from the Earth, that we are
of the Earth, that everything we need comes from the
Earth. If we should die, we turn into dust. In Tribal
ceremonies, red ochre is traditionally used to signify that
we arc people that respect the Earth.  Similarly, in the
Judeo-Christian tradition, in the story of Adam and Eve,
Adam translates to mean "red Earth." Of course, water is
also of vital importance; it makes up 65 percent in our
bodies. Some of us have an old Tribal custom of taking a
drink of water, as an acknowledgment of life flow, before
passing a particular stream.
      The Earth is our teacher. Our Tribal people believe
that wildlife are important teachers too. From them we
have learned what kind of plants to eat and what kind of
plants were importantfor medicinal purposes. They have
taught us their trails and about weather changes. They are
still teaching us; they are teaching us about the importance
of watershed protection. Whathappens to the wildlife will
eventually happen to humans.
      When I was a child, my mother would hold me, and
I remember the rhythm of her breathing and the beating of
her heart. The land is very much alive. To Tribal people,
it is our Mother Earth. We see the rhythm of her life flow
in the water, and in the salmon, birds, and deer.  Every-
thing in this land has a rhythm. We believe that we must
always respect the sustaining life flow and rhythm of our
natural resources.  We believe in a strong ethic, of know-
ing what is right and wrong in our use of the abundant
resources within our watersheds. We believe we need to
consider how our choices will affectfuture generations. It
is important to always keep  in mind that how  we use
resources today will impact the generations of tomorrow.
Many tribes believe  in sacred circles connecting past,
present, and future, each of which is  seen as  equally
important: The future is connected to—and no more or
less important than—the present or the past.
      Through our Coordinated Tribal Water  Quality
Program, we are implementing strategies to protect the
resources of our watersheds. We work in a government-
to-government relationship with the State of Washington.
The tribes also do legislative work to help protect water-
sheds and salmon resources.  Important components of
our coordinated efforts include public education and joint
data gathering that is coordinated with the State Depart-
ment of Ecology, Health, Fish, and Wildlife. Commit-
ment is also very important to our work. Volunteers are a
strong source of energy, and many of our volunteers have
a keen sense of commitment to watershed protection.
     In conclusion, when we work with other groups of
people, it is very important to establish common ground.
There is common ground in the protection of human
health.  Seen holistically, human health encompasses
body, mind, and spirit. The knowledge that everything is
connected—past, present, and future—can also provide
common ground. Thank you.
Charles A. Hunsicker

Ecosystems Administrator, Manatee County Planning
Bradenton, Florida

     I would like to tell you a little about my county,
Manatee County, Florida, and the watershed management
tools we use there.  I would also like to share, in this
context, some observations of mine about the process of
watershed management.
     The population of Florida and Manatee County is
strong  and growing.  That growth has placed a lot of
pressure on our natural resources and our demand for
water. Pressures and demands for clean water, wastewater
treatment, landfill space: these are the kinds of pressures
we are experiencing, the kind of pressures I am sure you
have all experienced in differing degrees.
     Our economy is based on tourism, agriculture, and
light manufacturing (not the heavy stuff). Our geography
is primarily flat.  We have coastal plains and very low
relief, and consequently we have short rivers. There are
four major rivers in Manatee County, two of which sup-
port drinking water reservoirs. Our coastal  zone falls
within three of EPA's National Estuary Program areas:
Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor.
     There are probably 3 million people within an 80-
mile radius of where I live. Our county is very diverse. The
center point of our residential area is approximately eight
miles upstream on the Manatee River. Our urban area is
low-profile and low-density.  A large percentage of our
population does identify with water, having either a river-
ine or a coastal perspective.
     Twenty-eight miles up the river we have a reservoir,
a drinking water supply, for our county and the county to
our south. Augmented by ground water, it provides about
45 million gallons per day for our population. Another 10
miles up the river (aboutSS miles from our coastline) there
isfarming; we have a year-round growing season. Nearly
all of it requires supplemental crop irrigation, despite
nearly 50 inches  of rainfall each year. We have lots of
vegetable farming, cattle on the open range, and a lot of
citrus—oranges and grapefruit.
     Interspersed in the interior of our county are large
natural areas —forests and wetiands.hardwoodhammocks.
These are the kinds of special areas that theState of Florida
and our regional and local government are working hard
to acquire for conservation purposes and low-impact
recreation. The population crush in Florida has moved the
state to adopt a multi-million dollar land-acquisition pro-
gram called Preservation 2000. In the 1980s, our county

Conference Proceedings
residents voted to tax themselves approximately $38 mil-
lion to acquire 23,000 acres in our drinking water water-
shed, to preserve the quality of our drinking water supply.
     Our watershed management tools are tools that I am
sure many of you are familiar with. The point I want to
make is that effective watershed management ties these
tools together in a thoroughly integrated way. It can be
useful to visualize this integration in horizontal and verti-
cal terms. It is important to achieve a horizontal integra-
tion of functions between and among land planners, regu-
lators, restoration specialists,  acquisition planners, and
attorneys, among other people.  It is also important for
these tools  and functions to be integrated vertically by
common threads of science and information, a regulatory
focus on ecosystems and watersheds—not just individual
activities—and land planning activities. Vertical integra-
tion also means coordinated efforts amongregional water-
shed management districts and local, state, and federal
levels of government.
     In my county, and in my part of the state, the
Southwest Florida Water Management District  is over-
seeing a new  frontier in water  use.  Florida observes
eastern water law, that water is for public beneficial use
and is a public right. We are experiencing withdrawals
that are overtaxing our aquifer's ability to replenish itself.
Salt water intrusion is one result. So our state agency is
wrestling with the concept of clamping down on new uses
of water forcing the counties and local governments  to
seek out alternatives to those traditional sources of water.
These might be reclaimed water use, stormwater diver-
sions, even desalinization.
     Let me close with three observations on how this
kind of integrated approach can work in nearly all loca-
tions around the  country.  First, I believe  that multi-
dimensional problems are best solved with multi-disci-
plinary teams—something that we' ve learned first hand in
the Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay national estuary pro-
grams . The national estuary teams are made up of talented
program directors who are facilitators and communica-
tors. They are backed up by program managers, who
address the details of contracts and the endless agreements
required in forming partnerships. Staff scientists direct
the work of hundreds of experts. Educators and multi-
media relations specialists play significant parts as well.
This multi-disciplined team has made things work.
     My second observation is really a request for help.
To put the information from this conference to work back
home, folks likemyself need to work with different groups
in our communities. This is going to require the assistance
of social policy planners—sociologists if you will—to
gauge the public opinion, to increase and measure com-
munity change, both positive and negative. Policy makers
need to know how successful they are being and where
adjustments  need to be made to  tailor a message to the
public.  Factors such as differences in socio-economic
status, employment differences, age, and education—any
number of variables—cause each of us to hear a given
message just a little differently from some one else. I seek
your help in the matter of communicating to our different
      My third and last observation is really a challenge.
As Charlene mentioned, a short-term mindset is some-
times counterproductive for dealing with certain prob-
lems  and solutions that may reach across time—time
measured in generations. In our culture, we seem to insist
on plans and programs with measurable results and clo-
sure in 5-, 10-, or 15-year increments.  We know our
representative form of government often demands even
shorter increments of time. And yet I believe we have to
get comfortable with some solutions and goals which will
not be achieved in our lifetime, and possibly not even in
our children's lifetime, but achieved nonetheless with
deliberateandmeasurableprogress. The restoration of the
Everglades and Florida Bay, the Chesapeake  Bay, the
Columbia River, to name a few, may require this kind of
long, long-term view.  Other countries and cultures in-
cluding, in many respects, our Native Americans' —hold
just such a generational view of time and results. I believe
we must adopt this view in some instances if we are to
achieve lasting environmental protection andsustainability
for our efforts. Thank you very much.
Suzanne C. Wilkins

Executive Director
Mississippi River Basin Alliance

        Good Morning. Thank you for the invitation to
speak at Watershed '96 on behalf of the more than 60
organizations that comprise the Mississippi River Basin
Alliance. Founded in 1992, the Alliance links traditional
conservation groups with environmental justice organiza-
tions interested in the well-being of the Mississippi River,
its resources, and its people. We link citizens from the
upper basin with those from the lower.
      Alliance citizens view the river from very different
perspectives, and we believe that this diverse viewpointis
critical in the watershed management process.  We took
three years to establish trust and to  get our organization
launched with the able guidance of the Maryland-based
Institute for Conservation Leadership.   Their role  as
facilitator was critical to bringing our diverse group to-
      The Mississippi Watershed encompasses  1.2 mil-
lion square miles—all or part of 33 states and two Cana-
dian provinces.
      The Mississippi is blessed with a wide array of fish
and wildlife   species.  It supports 5 million acres  of
forested wetlands, and 40 percent of the nation's migra-
tory birds use it as a byway. The Mississippi provides the
Gulf of Mexico with 90 percent of its fresh water.
      As we have settled this continent, we have gravi-
tated to our coasts and to our rivers.  Eighteen million
persons rely on the Mississippi for their water supply, and
even more persons for waste assimilation.
      In cities and elsewhere, many of our urban poor and
indigenous people rely on the Mississippi River for a
major source of their food. Unfortunately, fish in some of
those areas contain unhealthy levels of contaminants.

                                                                                          Watershed '96
     While some areas areposted.advisories and permit-
ting vary from state to state. Citizen organizations, such
as the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, have gotten
Tennessee to ban commercial fishing on the Mississippi
and are working for consistency across the river in Arkan-
     The lock and dam system on the Upper Mississippi
is vital to the transportation of bulk commodities. Indeed
somc380~400 million tons move down the river each year.
Unfortunately, this systemhasresultedinaseries of pools,
which causes sediment accumulation and the filling in of
backwater areas  so critical to the survival of fish and
wildlife. In 1993, top fish and wildlife scientists in the
regiondcvelopedareport indicating thepotential collapse
of the ecosystem on the upper river, which in part supports
a $1.2 billion recreation resource.  Currently, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has a $50 million study under-
way to expand the lock and dam system—at an estimated
cost of $5 to 6 billion—much of which will come from
     A variety of citizens, including the Alliance, are
working with state and federal agencies in a consensus-
building process—called theSummit—to improveunder-
standing of the river's system and diverse uses and needs.
     The levee system began when flood events caused
damage to human settlements and agricultural invest-
ments.  Taxpayers continue to pay for poor land use
decisions every time it floods.
     Despite our best efforts, we cannot control the
mighty Mississippi. The Flood of 1993 caused $ 12 to $ 16
billion in damage. The recommendations of the Galloway
report, undertaken after the' 93 flood, have to date been by
and large ignored. The Corps' own report, also under-
taken after the '93 flood, called for a variety of structural
and nonstructural methods to  minimize flooding.  This
study, too, has been ignored.
     While agricultural practices  have improved with
technology, we still have too much erosion, which results
in phosphates and nitrates finding their way into receiving
      Indeed, nutrient over-enrichment has resulted in a
7,000 square mile "Dead Zone" in the Gulf of Mexico.
This area—the size of Connecticut and  Rhode Island
combined—has impacted the commercial fishing in the
area. The Gulf provides 20percent of the nation's domes-
tic commercial fisheries.  Citizen organizations, such as
the Alliance and the Gulf Restoration Network,  have
recently been working with EPA to address this problem.
      Another result from agricultural runoff has been the
introduction of triazines in our water. Last summer, the
Alliance, in conjunction with the Environmental Working
Group and others, brought public attention to spring- and
summer-time atrazine and cyanazine spikes in our drink-
ing water.  Water quality  standards are set for healthy
adults, and we are just beginning to understand the impact
on humans by endocrine disrupters, as described in the
new book Our Stolen Future.
      Citizens in the watershed may come from diverse
groups.  Whoever they are, and whether  they play an
advocacy role or are involved in a consensus-building
watershed management process (such as Trudy Coxe
described for Massachusetts), it's critical to recognize the
needs of all citizens in the basin.
     People are the key to future watershed management.
Whether they actively participate or whether they do not,
all citizens' rights must be included in our decision-
making process.
     No matter how large or small our watershed may be,
we all have a role in its future.
     Thank you!
Parker W. Keen

Land Manager, Cargill Fertilizer Inc.

     Goodmorning. I appreciate the opportunity to share
some thoughts with you at the beginning of this panel
discussion. I would like to give a very quick overview of
some of the kinds of things going on not only within our
company but also within private industry: some of the
opportunities that we have really just begun to tap.
     I will give a short overview of Cargill's specific
programs that relate to watershed management.  It may
appear to be a PR piece, but it really isn' t. It's intended to
be an introduction to how we in private industry can touch
on issues that are of concern to this conference. Then I will
talk about a specific issue for the state of Florida in which
we have been involved in our mining operations, so that
you can understand how we approach the  concept  of
watershed management in an extractive industry such as
phosphate mining.
     As a corporate employer, Cargill has the opportu-
nity to touch many thousands of people through programs
thatitinitiates as a corporation with commitment from top
management. We have the opportunity to communicate
values and other things to our employees in such a way that
we  can really touch on issues that are very important to
sustainability in this country and even around the world.
Cargill can reach over 75,000 homes with concepts such
as our Water Matters program.
     In February 1995 Cargill initiated a program called
Water Matters. This program has strong commitment
from the CEO and the Chairman of the Board of Directors
all the way down through the Cargill corporation. It was
implemented in the corporation not only in this country
but in offices throughout the world.  It's been done in
coordination with the Conservation Fund, and Larry Selzer
has been very involved.  We have also coordinated with
National Geographicand used some of their materials. We
have been communicating the importance of this type of
program in many different ways and throughout the com-
munities where we operate.  We highlighted the Water
Matters campaign in the Cargill employee magazine, at
employee picnics, and at customer appreciation days and
     The core objective of this program is employee
education and awareness. We are trying to link volunteers
and resources in the  community to look at grass-roots
ways of conserving water and making water conservation

 Conference Proceedings
 a priority in the homes of all of our employees. And, of
 course.as wedo this,related opportunities open up through
 the school system and civic activities, so we can spread the
 Water Matters message even further.
      We have sponsored field trips for school children of
 all ages, involving them in the Water Matters program.
 We have also had "Adopt-a-River" science projects, where
 we've had cleanup campaigns within river systems all
 across the country. We have sponsored a wetlands habitat
 studies program at the Sunflower School in Canada,
 which is  just one example of the way we work with
 different  educational outreach efforts.  This particular
 program dealt with Kindergarten through third grade.
      We want to show employees that our water conser-
 vation message is not just something for them to take
 home, but something that the corporation is very commit-
 ted to. To demonstrate our company's commitment, we
 are also embarking on programs within our facilities and
 our operations. We' ve had facility tours so that people can
 see how this commitment is being put forward.
      Cargill has had science fairs and other cleanup
 programs in the state of Florida. This effort is a compo-
 nent of the larger Cargill Cares program, which has been
 fully implemented throughout the corporation.
      Letme touch briefly on watershedissues that Cargill
 is dealing with in Florida. Our mining lands in central
 Florida lie on both sides of the Peace River.  We are very
 much involved in the Peace River watershed. The river
 flows for over 100 miles from the Charlotte Harbor all the
 way up to Polk County, Honda, right up through the
 center of the state. We have initiated a process of looking
 at pre-mining land uses,.looking at the watersheds and
 how they have been fragmented, looking at the Peace
 River and how the tributaries to the river have been abused
 in some cases.
      We are working through our mining plans and
 reclamation designs  to establish what we  would call
 habitat networks. This is really ecosystem-based water-
 shed management, keying the preservation areas where
 there will be no mining to the reclamation areas after the
 planned mining is completed. The objective is that when
 we are finished, we will have actually restored the water
 basin to be more of a functioning system than it is today.
 Some 60,000 acres of our private land are going  to be
 involved in this ecosystem-based stewardship program.
 This program is not only being accomplished by our
 company, but by the entire industry.
      That's just a brief overview of how Cargill is using
 the watershed approach in Florida, and where Cargill has
 committed significant resources as a corporation world-

Larry:  I have some  questions that I will address to
individual panel members, but I hope that other panel
members will feel free to respond also. My first question
relates to something that Trudy Coxe said early on in our
panel discussion—something that struck me because it
 touches a concern of mine: That is, as everything moves
 aggressively to the local level, how can we ensure that
 local people and organizations are prepared to deal with
 the responsibilities  they will inherit? Trudy, could you
 comment further on how the state of Massachusetts is
 approaching capacity building at the local level.

 Trudy: First of all, let me say that Massachusetts' idea to
 commit $2.5 million in grants for technical assistance and
 capacity building really came as a result of lots of discus-
 sions with many watershed leaders in the commonwealth.
 Some of them are here today; all of them recognize both
 their strengths  and their weaknesses. In general, water-
 shed groups are  very good at education and outreach.
 Everyone knows that advocacy is one of their special
 strengths.  In Massachusetts, the quality of watershed
 associations varies. Some have strong staffs and execu-
 tive directors. Other groups are just beginning to get off
 the block. Our grant program is going to be competitive
 in  ways that I hope will  encourage capacity building.
 Watershed groups and other nonprofits are invited to
 submit proposals to the state on how they want to attack a
 particular problem in their watershed. We are inviting
 them to work with each other and to propose grants that
 involvelocal officials orlocal planning agencies or others.
 The program is designed to take some of the burden off of
 the state and put it into the hands of the locals, who we
 believe can really advance the vision of watershed protec-

 Parker:  Let me add just a quick comment.  Charlie
 mentioned earlier the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary
 Program in Florida, which is just being formed with some
 funding help from EPA. I serve on the citizens' advisory
 committee for this NEP, along  with many, many other
 citizens. From the perspective of that committee, I can see
 how logical it is, and how productive it can be, to involve
 the local citizens.

 Larry: To a large extent, I see the environmental crisis as
 a crisis of creativity. By soliciting a bare minimum of
 public input, national decision makers have failed to tap
 the well of human ingenuity on this and many otherissues.
 Suzie, I know that in the Mississippi watershed, you are
 interested in where, how, and at what point we engage
 citizens in the process of watershed management.  Could
 you expand a little on how that happens in the Mississippi

 Suzie:  There are, I believe, over 54 local, state, regional,
 and national agencies that have some regulatory authority
 over the Mississippi River. Even setting aside the33-state
 watershed and looking at the 10 main-stem states, all but
 two of those states have borders defined by the river, so the
 Mississippi tends  to be forgotten at the border line. We
 need to look at  it as a whole system and make sure that
indeed citizens are involved in the process.

     I haven't any greater insight man  to stress how
importantitis to bring all citizens to the table. I would urge
any government people who may be here to think through

                                                                                           Watershed '96
how you arc approaching citizens. Bring them on board
early in the process. Make sure the invitation is extended
to all; don't assume you know who ought to be there. Use
organizations such as River Network based in Portland to
find other people who are interested in rivers and water-
sheds. Consider basic questions suchas, Do youknow the
group of citizens you are working with represents the
basin diversity in terms of the issues you are trying to
solve?  Simple things like meetinglocations,andhow you
set up a room so that is accessible to citizens, can also be

is selected by the group. And as Trudy just mentioned,
make sure that there  is money and support so that the
collaborative effort can move ahead,  so that the citizens
don't have to pay for the process out of their own pockets.
I jsten to and incorporate what citizens are saying into any
subsequent government action.

Larry.  Fveoftenthoughtthattechnologyisagoodavenue
forinvolvingcitizens. Ihavefoundthattobesoinmyown
experience, when working with GIS mapping capabili-
ties. GIS is a great way to graphically involve citizens in
decision making. I'm interested, Parker, how at Cargill
and in some of your previous  work in  the phosphate
industry,youhaveusedsomeof thesenew technologies to
develop some very innovative solutions, including the
Life-of-Mine planning. How does that work?

Parker.  At Cargill,  we've used several different GIS
systems to characterizeexistinglandformsandecosystem
functions and to determine what the overall condition of
the environment is before we begin a particular mining
operation. In doing this, we work with local government
as well as the state and federal regulatory agencies. Later
on, when we have concluded the mining operation, this
GIS-assisted information can serve as a tool for restoring
ecosystems and the  environment to the condition that
existed when we started. That is the goal of Life-of-Mine
planning. In my earlier experience with the U.S. Army
Corps  of Engineers, this kind  of holistic planning is
something that the Corps tried to develop years ago—to
move beyond looking at pieces of a basin one at a time to
taking an entire watershed basin into account—but was
not successful then because we lacked the GIS tools we
have today.

Larry: Charlie, you are on the other side of that issue on
the local government level. Do you have comments to

Charlie. I agree that GIS systems are very valuable tools.
They can help us fix images in time.  We all have  a
penchant for trying to see snapshots in our own lives and
in public matters. It is really impossible for us to perceive
geologic time. It is also often difficult for us to keep
biological time in perspective—to watch that tree in the
back yard grow, for instance. Environmental change is
also difficult to see, and GIS systems can help us see it.
They can help us measure changes that are incremental in
achieving a vision for our watershed.  A GIS system can
help policy makers capture a vision and communicate it to
the public, and it can help measure our incremental suc-
cesses along the way to achieving that vision. It's a good
interpretive tool.

Larry.  The issue of time  is very interesting and very
critical. Akey questioninmy mindis how do wereconcile
the powerful tension between our short-term American
society and the inherently long-term perspective needed
for decision making with respect to natural resources and
watershed planning. We have governments that think in
terms of two-, four-, and six-year elections.  We have
corporations that think in  one- to three-year planning
increments.  Wall Street thinks in terms of three-month
financial reporting increments.  Charlene, I'm interested
in the tribes' notion of historical perspective and context,
and the circles that you mentioned. How can we begin to
reconcile the multi-year aspect of watershed planning
with the short-term time frames that most of us face in our

Charlene: One thing that we need to agree upon is that we
have a common goal.  To achieve that goal, we need to
have indicators.  Some of these can be natural resource
indicators such as salmon and shellfish. Another indicator
is human health. We need to have the common goal of
protecting human health, but also realize that human
health itself is connected to the watershed. Within the
watershed, we have wildlife and a diversity of natural
resources. I think the most important thing is that we have
a foundation,  which links us to the past.  From that
foundation, we can determine how far we have come, and
possibly determine the mistakes that we have made. For
future generations, I think one of the indicators is the ethic
of each individual. We need to be aware of what impacts
our actions will have on future generations.

Trudy: I would like to tie a few thoughts together, on the
theme of time.  When taking a watershed approach one
really shouldn't think about how long a particular gover-
nor  will be around or in terms of immediate political
issues. That is why, in creating a vision for the future of
a watershed, the larger the base of people who participate
in creating that vision, the better the results.  We were
talking about technology: I was really struck when one of
the classrooms doing work on the Neponset River water-
shed gave me a lesson on how they  were using global-
positioning technology and equipment to be exactly pre-
cise in locating every single stormdrain that drains to the
Neponset. The goal is for those kids to come back 20 years
from now to see if those stormdrains are still around.

      If we don't reach out to the whole variety of people
who live in a watershed, if we don't elicit their ideas on
what the watershed should look and feel like for their
children, then I think we miss the point. That process of
vision creation—involving as large a group of people as
possible—is very important  to the watershed approach.

Conference Proceedings
And reaching out to school kids, who are going to be
around much longer than we are, is even more important.

Charlie:  I would like to add an observation. As we set a
vision for a watershed, a leader's role is to keep the vision
alive, and to keep it moving ahead. Perhaps as scientists
and policy advisors, we can highlight measurable results
that fit the vision so that everyone can see these incremen-
tal results as they happen.  So we need not always ask,
when will the park—all 10,000 acres of it—be finished?
We can ask, for example, when will the first trail be
opened?  In saying this, I am thinking of questions that I
am often asked, and I'm not always comfortable saying,
well, that it won't be finished in our lifetime.

Larry: Rita Mae Brown, a very smart lady, once said that
a good definition of insanity is doing the same old things
in the same old ways and expecting different results.
Trudy, I was reminded of Rita Mae Brown when you were
talking about restructuring government. In your position
as Secretary, you have executive fiat in some cases, but
very often, it is difficult  to  get existing fiefdoms in
government to suddenly broaden their way of doing things
and focus on a cross-jurisdictional issue like watershed
management. Can you tell us a little more about how that
is working in Massachusetts?

Trudy: I came into the job of Secretary of Environmental
Affairs three years  ago and thought it would be an easy
thing to get people to work together, given that all five
state agencies I work with have environmental protection
as their mission, and all of the professionals in all five
departments  are dedicated to making the environment of
Massachusetts better. I have great regard for every one of
them. Little did I know that it was going to be so hard to
get the Fish and Wildlife people  to join forces with
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the
DEP people  to join forces with the Department of Envi-
ronmental Management. It has been an ongoing challenge
to move that process forward.  Fortunately, many of the
agencies  are planted with people who think in terms of
better and newer ways of doing things, and I have relied a
great deal on those people. These are people who demon-
strate with sheer will and enthusiasm the need for all of us
in state government to come together to protect the water-
shed.  We cannot do the job working independently from
one another.

      One of the points I try to hammer home is that if we
can't overcome differences between sister state agencies
to develop a better rapport among people who share a
basic mission, how can we possibly hope  to develop
rapport with people who have missions that are different
from  ours?  It  does take time to change institutional
culture, and this is an ongoing process. One of the forces
that have helped bring state agency people together is the
watershed associations; these people push us to coordi-
nate our efforts. The bottom line, I think, is trust. Whoare
our friends on watershed issues inside and outside of state
government? Is watershed management a las ting project?
Is the governor really committed to it? The process is one
of building trust, and it doesn't happen overnight.

Parker: I appreciate all of Trudy's comments because in
Florida we have embarked on a system of ecosystem
management. This approach has allowed us to do some
things that would not otherwise have been possible. In our
Lif e-of-Mine permitting system, this means going beyond
just water quality issues to preserving an entire ecosystem
base. This might include, for example, saving wildlife
habitat in second-order stream systems. As part of our
permitting plans, we are preserving key component areas,
which can include not just wetlands, but associated up-
lands and native range systems, which can be very impor-
tant in Florida. We have seen the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, the water management dis-
tricts, and the Corps of Engineers all working in unison,
and it's been very refreshing.

Trudy: I think there is another issue. That is that all of us
in state governments—whether in Massachusetts or Cali-
fornia or any other state—are under the gun more than
every before to be accountable to the taxpayer. People
expect us to spend their money well. One thing that state
officials can do is build budgets around watershed areas.
We can use budget issues to pull people on board.

Suzie: As we are trying both to protect our resources and
conserve our tax dollars—while working collaboratively
with the people who need to be involved in the decision
making process—let's also try to coordinate our efforts in
terms of technology and data.  We were talking  earlier
about GIS mapping systems.  Let's try to make sure that
the various levels of government are all working with the
same maps and the same data sets, so that everyone is
making decisions on the same playing field.

Larry:  I would like to close the panel by invoking Oliver
Wendell Holmes, who said, 'To livefully is to be engaged
in the passions of one's time." I can say without reserva-
tion that our panelists are a group of men and women who
have lived life fully. They have been truly engaged in
making a difference in the one really new  issue  of our
generation: environmental quality. »3>

Special Exercise
Tuesday, June 11,1996

Gathering Responses
From  Large  Groups
Edward Dickey, Chief of Planning
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program
       Effective community involvement is an essential
       component of the watershed approach to environ-
       mental protection. But how do you handle the
 logistics of soliciting and analyzing  input from large
 groups of people at public meetings?
      A process called the 'large group response exer-
 cise" has been developed to help community organizers
 manage public meetings—groups up to several hundred
 people—to achieve focusedresults. To demonstrate how
 the process works with an actual group of people, modera-
 tor Edward Dickey engaged Watershed '96 conference
 participants in a large group response exercise, using
 techniques developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
 neers. Three questions concerning watershed manage-
 ment were posed to the group.  (See box regarding the
 specific questions and most frequently given responses
 from the exercise.) These questions are not formulaic; in
 other words, the questions posed to any particular group of
 people are necessarily tailored to the particular problems
 confronting their community.
      Theexerciseitself consists of afour-step process for
 eliciting, displaying, and summarizing responses from
 any large group. In addition, there are important steps
 before and after the exercise, namely the pre-exercise
 preparation and set-up  and  the post-exercise analysis.
 This entire sequence of steps is summarized below:

      Pre-Exercise Preparation and Set-Up.  The heart
 of the large group response exercise is a set of questions
 related to the purpose or theme of the meeting. Typically,
 thrcequestions are usedfor an exercise. Itis importantthat
 these questions be carefully framed before the exercise.
      Other pre-exercise activities  include  preparing a
 response sheet for recording answers (with a designated
 answer block for each question), preparing a moderator's
 script and visual aids for exercise presentation, and visit-
 ing the meeting site.
     Two set-up tasks are required on the day of the
exercise.  First, banks of flip charts on stands are set up,
with one bank of charts dedicated to each of the selected
questions. Each bank is usually three or more charts wide
and forms a "wall" of paper. The "walls" are put in
separate locations in the meeting room or in a nearby
room.  Several marking pens and a collection box (for
completed response sheets) are placed at each "wall."
Second, if prepared in advance, response sheets are dis-
tributed to exercise participants. It may also be necessary
to provide pens or pencils and a writing surface (book, pad
of paper, etc.).
     Exercise Step  1—Questions and Responses.  A
moderator introduces the exercise, explaining its purpose
and the procedure to be followed. The moderator explains
the first question and then allows participants three min-
utes to write all of their responses in the first block of the
response sheet. This question-and-response format will
be repeated for the remaining questions.
     Exercise S tep 2—Most Important Responses. The
moderator provides participants with a final three minutes
to individually review their responses and to select and
mark (by circling or checking) their "most important"
response to each question.
     Exercise Step 3—Wall Walk.  Participants visit
each of the flip chart "walls" of paper to display their
."most important" responses.  Each "wall" should  be
attended by an assistant to help participants,  to move
completed sheets of paper to nearby walls, and to summa-
rize responses. When all of the participants have dis-
played their "most important" responses, the moderator
visits each "wall," reviews the responses with the assis-
tant, and notes af ew key points that summarize the results.
     Exercise Step 4—Summary.  When the partici-
pants have reassembled, the moderator presents the sum-
mary of the responses to each of the questions. Partici-
pants may wish to discuss the results.
     Post-Exercise Analysis. Further analysis after the
exercise can range from  simply reading the response
sheets to be fully informed about participants'  ideas, to

Conference Proceedings
                            Summary of Watershed '96 Exercise

QUESTION #1 —How do you recognize successful watershed management?
    1. By realizing environmental results, including water quality improvements, increased biodiversity, and healthy
       ecosystems (seeing dragonflies!).
    2. By experiencing broad community involvement, buy-in, and participation.
    3. By having adequate communication and education about watershed issues.
    4. By achieving a balance between environmental quality and economic health.
    5. By having good assessment, measurement, and monitoring techniques.
    6. Promises made are promises kept—implement!

QUESTION #2—What are the obstacles to using a watershed approach?
    1. Jurisdictional obstacles.
    2. Lack of direction.
    3. Lack of education and awareness.
    4. Lack of money—who benefits is not the same as who pays.
    5. Communication problems.
    6. Lack of tools and processes.
    7. Disagreement about the role of regulation—To regulate or not to regulate?
    8. Other responses.

QUESTION #3—During the next 10 years, what should be done to improve watershed management?
    1. Provide more education of the public, agencies, and professionals.
    2. Increase funding and incentives, including tax incentives and use of a watershed approach.
    3. Reorganize and plan on a watershed basis.
    4. Promote partnerships.
    5. Use regulatory tools with opportunities for flexibility.
    6. Improve science, tools, data, and business processes.
    7. Improve leadership through vision, goals, and problem solving.
    8. Other responses.
key word and content analyses of the responses. (The
summary responses from the Watershed '96 exercise have
been put to use by several organizations that  helped
sponsor the conference.)


     The four exercise steps that are conducted during
the meeting can be completed in about 45 to 90 minutes.

Materials and Room

     Materials needed to conduct a large group response
exercise usually include: flip charts (pads of paper and
stands), markers, tape (or pins), response sheets, pens or
pencils, and signs.  Other materials can be used to fit
special exercise needs. The exercise meeting room should
have writing surfaces (tables, or participants' pads.books,
etc.), wall space suitable for the display of completed flip
chart pages, and adequate space for circulation during the
wall walk.

     The large group response technique is:
    •  Quick.  Full participation by a large group can be
       completed and results  are known in about one
    •  Inexpensive. Costs can be limited to flip charts
       and work sheets; expenses for separate break-out
       rooms and small group facilitators and recorders
       are minimized or eliminated.
    •  Easy. The steps are straightforward; equipment
       and materials are familiar,  readily available, and
       not readily flawed.
    •  Documented.  Results  are immediately self-re-
       corded on response sheets, flip chart pages, and
       summary notes.

Need more information?

     For more detailed information, please contact:
     Institute for Water Resources
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
     7701 Telegraph Road
     Alexandria, Virginia  22315-3868
     Phone: 703-428-6054; Fax: 703-428-8171

 Special Guest
 Wednesday, June 72, 1996
The Honorable Bruce  Babbitt
U.S. Department of the Interior
          When I learned aboutWatershed' 96—and about
          your efforts—I said to myself, "There's some-
          thing real big happening up there in Balti-
 more." I decided that, no matter what it took, I had to be
       I believe that out of this movement—the Water-
 shed movement—is coming the beginnings of a brand
 new chapter in American environmental history and in
 American community history.
      What I would like to do very briefly is explain to you
 why I've come to the conclusion that I have just stated.
      It began about a year ago, in April of 1995. It began
 to dawn on me that this new Congress that had come to
 town was not out to do any good for the environment, was
 not going to grant me any favors, and in fact had a radical
 slash-and-burn agenda, beginning with gutting the Clean
 Water Act, moving to beginning to close national parks,
 and trying to destroy the Endangered Species Act. I woke
 up one day after a frustrating session of getting nowhere
 and I said to myself, I think it's time to leave town. I think
 i t' s time to pack my bags and get the hell out of here. What
 I meant by that was I felt it was time to get out on the
 American landscape and try to understand why this "dis-
 connect"—because all of a sudden there was this radical
 agenda, and I don* t for a moment believe that's what the
 1994 election was about. So I thought I better find out
 what's happening across this country.
      I began one spring day. I thought what I'll do is go
 to Cleveland and see if I can find the exact place where the
 river burned in 1969—the burning Cuyahoga River. And
 I went out, on that spring day, and found a couple of folks
 with a boat who took me downtown. And on that spring
 morning, we went up the Cuyahoga River to the bridge
 trestle where the river had burned. What I saw before my
 eyes was really extraordinary. I saw a river reborn. I saw
 businesses, restaurants, walks along the river.  I saw
 fishing boats coming up the river, and as we came to this
 spot where the river had burned, a blue heron flew down
 out of the sky, looking for its breakfast in that river.  And
 I subsequently went out to Lake Erie, and I saw a lake—
pronounced dead in the 1960s—reborn. I began listening
to the people in that community explaining how it had
happened. And then I began to see something that I really
hadnotunderstoodorappreciatedatall. Ibeganto see that
as the waters were restored, the waters were restoring the
community, that Cleveland was again moving back to the
waterfront that it had abandoned at the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution, that the public places were being
re-created, and that the community was being drawn
together as the waters were restored.  As I progressed up
the Cuyahoga River, I met citizen groups who explained
to me, it's not enough just to clean up Lake Erie, and it's
not enough to have an effort at the mouth of the Cuyahoga
River. This is a watershed.
     And I began progressing,  in subsequent visits, up
the Cuyahoga River and out on the land, where I heard
citizens saying to me: This is not just about Lake Erie; it's
not just the Cuyahoga River.  It's about all of the waters
and all of the land; it's about how we as citizens live on that
landscape—andhow itis we relate to the watershed. Well,
with that in mind, I began looking, as I traveled down the
Jersey shore, as I made my way through the communities
of the Hudson River—Troy, Peekskill, Poughkeepsie—
everywhere I turned, what I saw was not federal or state
officials, but communities who were taking and integrat-
ing federal and local resources  and using these laws  to
their own ends to restore their watershed and their com-
     Now, F11 admit to you I also had some light-hearted
moments on the way.  By the purest of coincidences, I
decided to spend a day on the Chatahoochee River, which
coincidentally runs through the  district, outside Atlanta,
of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. We got
out there one summer day with a flotilla of canoes, and a
whole lot of citizens and every media outlet in greater
Atlanta. It turns out that the Chatahoochee in that area is
a national recreation area. And we posed the question:  Is
there anyone  who believes we  ought to gut the Clean
Water Act? And is there anyone who believes that in the
United States of America we have  too many  national

parks. Well, I have to tell you, by the time that day was
over, a powerful message had been sent to Washington.
The Speaker of the House stepped forward and pulled the
Park Closure Bill from the calendar of the House. If s not
been seen since.
      Now that's the point at which I started to see the
connection; I started to understand that this grass roots
revolution that' s taking place hadn't quite been heard in
Washington.  I
came away from
are now moving
                   The next chapter in conservation history is going to be
                   written in watersheds by communities..  .
tiiSbe^use^e    the easy victories,  that can be done by remote control,
the voice of your    have in large measure been addressed.
community    	—	—	
makes its way
back, there isn't any question about the outcome of this
 vation and Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endan-
 gered Species Act, the Land Management Act, is a simple
 reality—and that is that the easy victories, that can be done
 by remote control, have in large measure been addressed.
 Now we' re talking about complexity; we're talking about
 how those laws interrelate to each other. We're talking
 about how we change attitudes. We're talking about a
 culture being changed in a way that will permit thoughtful
                                    land  manage-
	                      ment, that will
                                    move commu-
                                    nities to see the
                                    entire  land-
                                    scape and un-
                                    derstand that it
                                    can't all  be
                                    done    from
                                    Washington. It
process. Now, I've seen this happening in a lot of other
places.  Is there somebody here from Columbus, Ohio?
We spent an extraordinary day out on the Little Darby
Watershed watching a community taking charge of that
watershed. I was in Seattle last fall in a place called Hper
Creek, where a community—in this case  a neighbor-
hood—had gone out and looked at Piper Creek, and a
coupleof schoolteachers had gotten a bunch of school kids
out there, and they said: We' re going to clean this creek up,
and we' re going to get salmon back spawning in this river.
They went out, and first of all found out that the water
treatment plant was leaking and that they had to go after
the city to clean up the water treatment plant, and then did
habitatrestoration along the creek. Then, in aprof ound act
of optimism, the high school kids planted some salmon.
And I was there three years later as the first salmon out of
that  creek had made their journey out to tide water-
circulating through the Pacific and coming back home.
You all know the examples.
     What I want to say to you in conclusionis this: The
next chapter in conservation history is going to be written
in watersheds by communities for a couple of important
reasons. The first one is, as you all understand, there is no
other way to relate to the land we live on. The water that
we drink and that is in our communities  is an exact
reflection of what is happening on every square acre of
land in the entire watershed, from the mouth of that river
to the  reaches of every single tributary. Every other
program, every other approach is, by definition, piece-
meal. The one integrating possibility that we now come to
is relating to the whole, and we need to understand—and,
when I say we I mean us in  Washington—that that brings
forth a profoundly different set of relationships because
watersheds in their complexity, in their diversity, their
incredible balance, cannot be managed from 3,000 miles
away by any organization, no matter how well-intentioned.
We also have to understand that the environmental laws
passed one at a time over the  last 20 years have been
effective. We've won a lot of the big victories, but what
wefind with single-track administration of theSafe Drink-
ing Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conser-
 can't all be done by administrators with a different set of
 laws; ultimately, some one has to bring them together and
 transform them from statute books into attitudes in the
 hearts andminds of communities. That is the next genera-
 tion as surely as John Muir set off one generation of land
 protection, as surely as Rachel Carson set off another
 generation that led to the EPA's [charter] set of issues.
      This time we've come full circle, right back where
 we started—to communities on the land who see it whole
 and who are willing to take the initiative, take these laws
 and say to all of us: You'renotthe solutionin Washington;
 you have potential to empower us and help us.  I believe
 that feeling is now out there across this landscape, ready
 to take off. That's why I'm here: because I believe we are
 ready to take off, that you are present at the creation and
 that you together can revolutionize the landscape and the
 communities  that must and always will be on  the land-
 scape. Thank you very much. <*

Luncheon Address
Wednesday, June 12,1996

Telling the  Story: Communicating
Complex  Environmental Issues
to the Public
Judith Gradwohl
Director, Office of Environmental Awareness, Smithsonian Institution
I    am hereto talk about my experience atthe Smithsonian
    Institution with public education on science and envi-
    ronmental issues.  My program—the Smithsonian
 Office of Environmental Awareness—provides abridge
 between technical information and the public. Any public
 information program—including museum exhibitions—
 has to be grounded on really strong science, and that's
 what you all provide.  Many people in this room have
 helped us by contributing technical information.
      I want to talk about how we take scientific concepts
 and turn them into exhibitions. I love developing exhibi-
 tions because it's so much like writing a book and then
 being able to look over everyone's shoulder and watch
 them react to every page, to every single chapter.
      I've developed two major environmental  exhibi-
 tions for the Smithsonian. The first was called 'Tropical
 Rainforests: A Disappearing Treasure," which opened in
 1988 and circulated around the country until a couple of
 years ago. The second is called "Ocean Planet," which
 opened here in  Washington last year  and closed last
 month; it will open  in San Francisco at the Presidio in
 August. These are not typical Smithsonian exhibitions
 because they are based on concepts rather than objects.
 Usually when constructing an exhibition, you  have a
 series of paintings or other type of artifacts, and you weave
 a story around them.  With exhibitions like 'Tropical
 Rainforests" and "Ocean Planet," we  first develop a
 theme, an overarching educational message; then we go
 ahead and choose the  particular issues  we want to talk
 about and essentially weave stories around diem.
      The process is very collaborative.  I started "Ocean
 Planet" with a large conference and then a series of
 workshops to try to frame the issues.  We then move from
 a list of issues to space allocation. For example, we take
 a room this size and  say, OK, how much of this space do
 we want to devote to science underlying ocean conserva-
 tion? How much to andiropological issues? How much to
 environmental issues?
      Once we come up with a space  allocation, then
 comes thefun part, which is working with designers, lots
of different kinds of contractors, lots of creative thinkers
to decide on the best medium for conveying each type of
message. We develop a model and we walk tiny model
people through it to see what it's going to be like. We
conduct a global scavenger hunt for information, for
objects, and for photos to illustrate all the issues we're
trying to present.
     In me rainforest exhibition, for example, we wanted
to explore all of the  difficult issues that are causing
deforestation and spent a long time deciding how to get
people to want to spend tileir leisure time looking at the
ways forests are destroyed. We ended up with something
that looks like a pop art gallery of lots of different types of
sculptures. The Brahma bull symbolizes catde ranching,
which is a huge problem for forests throughout the New
World tropics. We decided we wanted alife-sizemodel of
a Brahma bull. I delegated this task to my assistant, Elliot,
who was brand new on the job. So Elliot consulted the
yellow pages—we've accumulated all the yellow pages
for all the major U.S. metropolitan areas for just this sort
of work—and first called the American Cattleman's As-
sociation, which referred him to the Brahma Growers'
Association of Texas.  Maybe it was Elliot's beginner's
luck, but the guy who picked up die phone at the Brahma
Growers' Association  of Texas had just ordered five
Brahma bull models the day before from a guy who lives
outside of Paris,Texas, and makes life-sizedBrahmabulls
for a living. His name is  Burt Holster, and he was very
happy to make a special order Brahmaforus, whichis very
beautifully painted. This is a case where die scavenger
hunt went very well.
     Sometimes the hunt goes awry. In tin's same rain
forest exhibition, we wanted to have an army-ant swarm
to illustrate die interactions between animals in a forest-
die intricacy  of tiiose interactions.  My own research
background happens to be on ant birds mat associate near
ant swarms. What happens is tiiis: The ants, as diey move
along die forest floor in wide columns, flush out all die
insects,andbirds hang outabovemem, making alivingby
following die ants around and eating die insects diat are

 Conference Proceedings	

 flushed. So we planned this great diorama with a taxider-
 mic bird and with ants. We rounded up some hundred of
 ants  from Harvard, where they had spent 35  years in
 formalin. The formalin had caused them all to seize up so
 that they looked like little balls of legs. The problem was
 how to unfold these ants and get their legs glued to the
 bottom of the diorama. We tried several "relaxing solu-
 tions "recommended by our taxidermist, and none of them
 worked.  At that point, we were beginning to panic
 because we already had a lot invested and this particular
 exhibit had a space
 allocation.   There
 was no choice; the    •		
 antshadtobepinned    The exhibition more than doubled the percentage

 pL to pin onelnt    ofvisitors who felt that ocean problems are the
 YOU  need two pins    consequence of human actions.
 cross wise on each of    '	—	—	
 their six  legs  and
 then one through the body. We tried enlisting the help of
 volunteers for this highly specialized task, but that didn't
 work out. It turned out that I was the only one who could
 pin an ant in under a minute, and I ended up pinning all 300
 ants, which I hope you'll see if you go to the exhibition.  I
 pinned each of their six legs and then used superglue to put
 them on.  (This falls in the "other duties as assigned"
 category.) I learned a lesson on  that one—not to get too
 tied to a concept before you work through the logistic
 details of actualizing it. As I said earlier, every object in
 an exhibition has its own story.
      In fact, any exhibition—and any mode of public
 education—is really a form of storytelling.  One of the
                                                       evaluate the impact made by the exhibition, we did sur-
                                                       veys before people entered, and when they exited.  We
                                                       also followed people around with stopwatches to see what
                                                       they did when they were in the exhibition, so that we could
                                                       get a feel for how much time they were spending where,
                                                       what caused them to go from one exhibit to another, and
                                                       which exhibits they paid the most attention to.  We also
                                                       checked to see if time spent at an exhibit had any correla-
                                                       tion to what people remembered at the end of the show.
                                                       Significantly, the exhibitionreduced by a third thenumber
                                                                                       of  people   who
                                                                                       thought   oceans
                                                                                       didn't affect their
                                                                                       lives. Most  of the
                                                                                       people we talked to
                                                                                       as they entered felt
                                                                                       that oceans affected
                                                                                       their lives in one
                                                                                       way or another. But
                                                      the exhibition made a huge difference among those who
                                                      did not go in feeling that way; many of them walked out
                                                      feeling, yes, oceans do affect my life after all.
                                                           I was also greatly heartened in that the exhibition
                                                      more than doubled the percentage ofvisitors who felt that
                                                      ocean problems are the consequence of human actions.
                                                      On entrance, many people would say, oh, the problem is
                                                      mainly oil spills; it's other types of huge pollution prob-
                                                      lems. After the exhibition, they were saying, well, the
                                                      problem has a lot to do with human activities; it has to do
                                                      with the way things are regulated.  They left looking at
                                                      oceans from a more  holistic viewpoint—looking at a
                                                      number of different issues feeding into ocean problems,
           	j	—.^v^^^g,.  v^iw ui my-    uuuuuti ui uiiiciciinssues leeoing into ocean proolems
 hardest parts of exhibition work is figuring out how to boil    not just pollution incidents or just overfishing. We nearly
 dOWn. let S Sav 10 Veat-S nf rptze'fkrr'h intn or»YYi*ittii««* tUot    .-I^VUI,,,! *1	A.	-c*i     i-      i   ~ . . ..   „
down, let's say, 10 years of research into something that
people can read about in seconds or minutes. We know
that people do not spend much time on any single label, so
we try to limit label narratives to about 50 words. Basi-
cally, exhibit labels tell extremely short stories about a
piece of research or a particular fact. One key is figuring
out how to space the labels.  You can't ever expect
anybody to read everything in an exhibition, but you want
enough stories to jump out so that there's something for
     We also use lots of different types of media in order
to attract interest. Basically, we do anything we can do to
slow people down as they go through an exhibition. One
of the ways that we communicate is through photographs.
We also create interactive exhibits. One of my favorite
interactive exhibits was in "Ocean Planet." It consists of
a case with products from a grocery store in it; people were
invited to scan the bar codes on the products, and the
computer screen  on the top would show what products
inside these packaged foods were from the oceans.  My
	J -™- £. V..AH.MV.U. *.uv.i.uvj_i.vi^ VA J MO I, \J T wm Jill ''I*- TT X> 11 C
Aclrieving Results Community by Community:
A National Satellite Videoconference
Wednesday, June 12,1996
The Honorable Carol M. Browner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    It is a real pleasure to be able to join all of you here in
    Baltimore today, as well as those who are participat-
    ing by satellite.
 years ago, the people
 of this country—
 Democrats, Republi1-
 cans, and indepen-
 dcnts —joined
                   An informed, involved local community can
                   do a better job of environmental protection than
                   some distant bureaucracy.	
together to say: "We  '                                 ~~~~
must stop the pollu-
tion. We must save our natural heritage."
     And together, we made tremendous progress.
Progress in cleaning up our air. Progress in cleaning up our
land. And progress in cleaning up our nation's waters.
     When President Clinton came to Washington, he
called on environmental leaders, on business leaders, on
citizens across this country, to helpcontinue that progress.
     President Clinton has always believed that environ-
mental protectionand economic progress gohandinhand.
Wedo not have to choose between our health and our jobs.
In fact, the two are inextricably linked.
     Protecting our environment means protecting pub-
lic health. It means protecting where we live and how we
live. It means real everyday benefits for American com-
munities—fresh air to breathe, land that is safe to live on,
clean, safe water to drink and fish and swim in.
     Today, communities across the country are benefit-
ing from the President's leadership on the environment.
     The Clinton Administration  is making sure that
states and communities have the resources they need to
kceprawsewageoutofriversandoffbeaches. Forthefirst
fund to help immunities protect and upgrade their drink-
ing water supplies. And, we are enforcing tough standards
to keep toxic pollution out of our waters.
     With  the President's leadership, we expanded the
public's right to know about toxic chemicals in their
communities. We have nearly doubled the number of
chemicals that industry must report to the public.
     This week, EPA released to the public a National
Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories—showing that
                            in too many commu-
                            nities, contamination
                            means that people are
                            still advised not to eat
                            the fish from their lo-
                            cal river, their local
                                 This   week,
                            EPA is also releasing
a comprehensive report that, for the first time, gives us a
set of environmental measures—a baseline—showing
that we are making progress in improving water quality—
but we still face many challenges.
     Across this country—watershed by watershed-
communities are coming together to meet those chal-
lenges. At today's conference, we are hearing the good
news about what can happen when people come together
to protect their watershed—to protect their health, the
places where they work and play and live—industry,
government, citizens joining together to find the solutions
that make sense for their watershed, their community.
     There is no doubt in my mind that an informed,
involved local community can do a better job of environ-
mental protection than some distant bureaucracy. You
here at this conference are the advocates, the leaders, in
protecting water quality in communities across this coun-
try. And community by community, we are seeing results.
     In the San Francisco Bay Delta, we ended 30 years
of water wars, by recognizing that the competing demands
for scarce resources had to be solved not through contin-
ued confrontation but by building consensus. Farmers,
families, and fishermen—all have arightto water. People
joined together, and now all will have the water they need.
     The Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative will re-
store the health and the economy of the Great Lakes, by
removing toxic chemicals from the lakes, protecting a
drinking water supply that serves  23 million people,
protecting wildlife,  fish, and people who  eat fish, in

Conference Proceedings
accordance with the latest and soundest scientific find-
ings. All because the people of the Great Lakes region—
some of whom are with us today—joined together, with
the help of the federal government, to protect their health,
their environment, their economy.
     The Clinton Administration's Everglades Restora-
tion Plan aims to ensure that future development in South
Florida will be integrated with the preservation of natural
areas. Through this plan, we can meet the needs of farm-
ers, the needs of urban areas,  the needs of the natural
system—and wecan save the heart of the Everglades—the
heart will once again pulse with water.
     All of this environmental progress has beenachieved,
by all of us working together, despite the fact that during
the past two years we have experienced the most severe
Congressional assault on environmental  protection in
     In the battle over the budget, in the battle over the
Clean Water Act and other environmental laws, President
Clinton stood firm for public health and environmental
protection. As a result of the President's leadership, vital
protections are in place and will remain in place.
     But the price of a clean, safe environment is that we
must always be vigilant. The responsibility will always be
ours to protect our health, our natural resources, our
children's future. The job is not done.

    •  One American in three still lives in an area  where
       the air is too polluted to meet federal health stan-

    •  One American in four still lives near a toxic waste

    •  Forty percent of rivers, lakes, and streams  sur-
       veyed by the states are still not suitable for fishing
       or swimming.

     President Clinton has called  on all  Americans to
come together, torestore the bipartisan commitment to the
environment that served this nation so well for the past
     I ask you to take what you learn at this conference
back to your communities.  Use it to  strengthen your
efforts as advocates and as leaders, to achieve for your
community what every community deserves—safe, clean
water for all.
       Let us join together—community by community,
watershed by watershed—to  protect our health, our
economy, and our communities—so all of us and our
children and our grandchildren can enjoy a healthy and a
prosperous life. Thank you. »J*

 Achieving Results Community by Community:
 A National Satellite Videoconference
 Wednesday, June 12,1996
The  Honorable  Sherwood Boehlert
U.S. House ofRepresentatives (D-NY)
    It is good to be with you today. I have a series of
    questions that have been asked of me, and I'll try to
    stick to the script by addressing these questions, so
 that I don't wander. You know how politicians are; they
 have a tendency to wander all over the place.

 What is your vision of water-related environmental poli-
 cies and programs?
     First of all, I envision a partnership between the
 sectors. They are	
 andshouidSnotte   Clean wate,r legislation -will have an increasing focus
 viewed that way.   on watershed management..  . and on the use of
 We all really want
 the same  thing.
 Clearly, we've
incentives to address nonpoint source pollution.
tion. Watershed management, as exemplified by the New
York City Watershed Program, is the future of water
quality protection. Urban and rural, point and nonpoint
source pollution control must be coordinated to provide
the most effective, most reasonable protection  of our
nation's waters.  I have been privileged to serve in a
leadership capacity to make the New York City Water-
shed Program a model for the nation. I'm well aware of the
challenges that watershed management poses to all in-
                                dialogue —
                                with  people
                                talking to each
                                other—and  a
                                commitment to
 got to do more to
 improve the quality of our nation's lakes and rivers and
 harbors. I think the American people will accept nothing
      Since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, we
 have made enormous gains in cleaning up our nation's
 waters.  However, these gains have been primarily in the
 area of point source pollution. Municipalities and indus-
 try have spent billions of dollars over the last two decades
 on limiting effluent discharges. Now we need to shift the
 focus of water improvement efforts to nonpoint source
 pollution. Today, well over 50 percent of water quality
 impairments in the United  States come from nonpoint
 sources of pollution—runoff from fields and streams and
 parkinglotsandconstructionsites. Since 1972, the federal
 government has put more than $60 billion into the control
 of point source pollution—money well spent on the build-
 ing of wastewater treatment facilities.  Over this same
 period, the federal government has provided less than $2
 billion to control nonpoint source pollution.
      Clearly, we must put greater resources into efforts
 aimed at assisting farmers and other stewards of the land
 in controlling ourlargest remaining source of water pollu-
                                                                improving wa-
                                                                ter quality and
                                the assignment of appropriate resources, we can make
                                watershed management work across the country.

                                What is the future of national water quality protection
                                     Clean water legislation will have an increasing
                                focus on watershed management—no question about it—
                                and on the use of incentives to address nonpoint source
                                pollution. Many in the agriculture community have been
                                leery of legislative efforts to control nonpoint-source
                                pollution. However, as we've seen in the New York City
                                watershed, when we work with fanners on a partnership
                                basis, we can make enormous progress.  The use of
                                incentive-based approaches is already taking shape in the
                                1996 Farm Bill. During consideration of this legislation,
                                I offered an amendment providing $2.7 billion for conser-
                                vation programs whose primary focus is water quality
                                improvement—programs  such as the Wetlands Reserve
                                Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, and the
                                Livestock and Environmental Assistance Program, which
                                have an enormous impact on improving of our nation's
                                lakes and rivers.


Achieving Results Community by Community:
A National Satellite Videoconference,
Wednesday, June 12,1996
Katherine  Baril
Washington State University Learning Center
Cooperative Extension, Jefferson County
                        If you think -we have fought wars over oil,
                        imagine what we will do for water.
I    have been asked to say a few words from the local,
    on-the-ground, community perspective. I have the
    honor of serving my community inNorthwest Wash-
ington state as a local county extension agent.
     We know that we are all a watershed-based people.
When we see a picture of Earth from Space, weagree with
the Director of the Smithsonian when he said that this
image may have caused
as big a change in our                       	
human consciousness and
in how we see ourselves
as a people  as  when
Copernicus said  the
World may not be flat.
N*o longer were we pioneers defeating a wilderness but
rather connected,  watershed residents of the spaceship
     The Earth sparkles in space because water covers 80
percent of its surface. Less than one-half of one percent is
drinkable.  Imagine the world's total water supply in a
large bathtub and the amount available for human con-
sumption less than one teaspoon. One billion people go to
sleep each night without clean water. If you think we have
fought wars over oil, imagine what we will do for water.
     We are also soon approaching the end of the 20th
century. The end of a millennium has always been a
tumultuous time in world history. In the 1800s—the birth
of democracy. In  the 1900s—the Industrial Age and the
beginning of a rapid period of resource extraction and
     What dreams for the 21st Century? Balanced natu-
ral systems? Individual stewardship? Sustainable com-
munities? Federal and state agencies working together, at
every level, with  local communities solving problems?
Healthy ecosystems?
     Watershed planning helps us do resource manage-
ment. But I'd suggest that it is also developing new skills
and new forums to use civic dialogue and to develop
informed public judgment as we create our common
     We are a watershed-based people. Always have
been. Early people gathered at rivers, streams, and shore-
lines. Water was food, navigation, commerce, and culture.
Families, clans, and tribes came together to build nations.
     African tribes took river names. Chinese settled in
drainages. In Europe, watersheds and bioregions evolved
into nation-states. In China over 1,000 years ago a rice
                          paddy fanner could veto
                          upland logging, not be-
                          cause he owned the land,
                          but because society un-
                          derstood sediment could
                          destroy  downstream
                          farms and food. Indi-
vidual rights were limited for larger community well
being. In medieval Spain, a family could live only as far
from the central community well as a woman could carry
a jug of the day's water from the well on her head. This
may have been the first boundary of an urban growth area.
In my watershed in the Northwest, coastal tribes have a
saying that "every River has its People."
     We all live in a geographic place, a landscape, a
watershed, the place where  we  are really home. Each
watershed is a unique life place, a bioregion. The soils are
nowhere else on Earth. A unique hydrogeology, the land-
scape, the history, the customs, worldview, relationships,
and connections. Not just mountains but Mt. Rainier. Not
just a river but the Hudson or the Sacramento River. Not
just an inlet but our bay. Each watershed has  a unique
sense of place and community.
     In the 1880s, John Wesley Powell saw the power of
watersheds and recommended to the President that the
West should be governed by  watershed. In the 1920s and
30s, water was important to  commerce as streams were
channeled and dredged and mountain tops were leveled to
make room for railroads. Water rights were issued to
farmers to ensure food for a country hungry with growing
immigration. In the 1940s and  50s, large engineering
projects dammed and channeled rivers. Water was the

Conference Proceedings
"solution to pollution," the solvent, the unlimited cheap
resource. Voluntary landowner action was stressed.
     In the 1960s and 70s, society began to get feedback
that we should no longer take water for granted. Rivers in
the East caught fire; shellfish
beds in the West were closed;
swimming  holes across the
country were at risk. As Sput-
nik reawakened our interest
in science, citizens across the
country came together and
turned to agencies, then filled
with scientists and lawyers,
and demanded "Clean Water Now."
     In the 1970s, the early days of the environmental
efforts, it was easy to identify, monitor, and regulate
smoke stack industry or pollution that came from pipes,
using centralized regulations and top-down authority.
Scientific based agencies developed massive regulatory
approaches committed to continuing technological and
industrial innovation and stressed best management prac-
     Now, we  face much more complex, interwoven
problems. Nonpoint pollution and watershed planning are
different. Nonpoint pollution comes  from people in our
everyday activities: gardening,  boating, expanding the
family summer cottage, changing oil, removing vegeta-
tion, expanding cities, wasting water.
     In early watershed-estuary programs in the 1980s,
such as  Puget Sound or Chesapeake, we modeled new
demonstrations for on-farm research. People who shared
a landscape but had never met or worked together were
convened to  inventory and prioritize watersheds. All
affected parties  were invited to come together.  People
have the right to be involved in issues that affect their
lives. Indeed,  this is a central tenet of democratic gover-
nance. Consensus was encouraged, certainly not because
it saved time, but to ensure that diverse voices were heard,
to comfort rural landowners that they would not be out-
voted by urban majorities, and to validate real concerns
and force the parties to work together to develop new
creative, win-win solutions that addressed everyone's
legitimate needs.
     Watersheds have taught us a lot in the last decade.
     We all live downstream. At a time when Americans
are pulled apart by the centrifugal force of the economy,
globalization, isolation, and individual rights, watersheds
restore balance by reminding us that we are all connected
to place, to  community, to our common future.
     Water makes us  neighbors. People understand
quickly that we live in and share a natural system of air,
lands, and water. Too often at a  national or global level,
our mind boggles and we feel hopeless. At a watershed
level we can  connect, put on  our boots, and make a
difference, and feel empowered.
     Water is not a science issue; it is socio-political.
Yes, we all want and need good science, but it is not
enough. The challenge is to reconnect people who hold
different values and restore civility. To depersonalize our
conflicts, to create options for mutual gain, to each be a
keeper of the  other's dignity, to have open, conflicting
At a watershed level we can connect,
put on our boots, and make a difference,
and feel empowered.
discussions about experiences and values including pride,
self-reliance, intergenerational equity, and yes, even fear.
      Water issues are more complex than we thought and
perhaps more complex than we can think. Future solutions
                            will require innovation
                            and experimentation. The
                            oscillation of the public
                            process will be less ex-
                            treme, less polarized, and
                            more moderate if we fo-
                            cus on communication
                            and adaptive manage-
                            ment rather than rights
and litigation. It will require and is demonstrating a
grassroots revolution.
      Today, watershed planning may be as much about
strengthening local communities and democracy as it is
about resource management. The central idea of commu-
nity politics is that in public life ordinary people can learn
new skills, develop the power to take leadership, and solve
local priority problems.
      Watershed planning—

    •  Creates common space where adversaries can
       become neighbors.

    •  Frames issues in public terms where we can all
       find ourselves.

    •  Encourages deliberations  and hard choices rather
       than polarization and sound bites.

    •  Creates commitment and  support for action.

      It is clear that issues that affect everyone can no
longer be left to the few. We now know that complex
issues require diverse input. We  understand that we are
moving to adaptive management; we know it is dysfunc-
tional to continue isolated agency programs that separate
wetlands from groundwater, toxics from lakes, and air
from water. These approaches need to be integrated, and
the community holds the silver thread that can quilt and
weave them together.
     We must  stop convening  negotiation tables that
stereotype stakeholders by labeling three farmers, two
elected officials, one environmentalist, and a business
leader. Rather, we need new forums and processes that
challenge people to synthesize their interests, see holistic
views of local issues, and represent the larger community
well being.
     Watershed planning is pioneering new models of
civic entrepreneurship and new ways to engage adversar-
ies in intentional dialog. It is much more than consensus
and no less than democracy.
     Water may be the one last, best chance we have to
bring our American communities back together again. As
the writerGary Snyder observed: "Of all the memberships
by which we identify ourselves—sex, race, ethnic, na-
tional origin, class, age, or occupation—the one that is
most forgotten and that has the greatest potential for
healing is place.  People who  care for and commit to a

                                                                                         Watershed '96
                       Water may be the one last, best chance we
landscape, even if otherwise locked in struggle, have at
least this deep thing to share."
     If you live in a high crime area, you try to move
away. If we have bad schools, we start private or home
schools. If we have bad air, we crank up the air-condition-
ing. Water—the only
thing we can not sur-
vive without—makes
us all neighbors. We
knowweaUUvedown-   nave to bring our American communities back
stream.                       .
     Oh,  yes, there   together again.	
are still challenges.
Can we reduce con-
sumption, resource use, our ecological footprint, which is
multiples of any  other country? Can  we accommodate
growing urban and rural tensions? Can agencies —federal
and state—get beyond cutting staff and block granting
funds to really "reinventing" their approach? The federal
government has  a  definite role in forging  a national
consensus on performance standards so that a child has
clean water no matter where she lives. The state should
provide technical assistance, data bases, neutral, third-
party monitoring, and enforcement. But it is the locals
who bring their hearts and their energy, and deliver action
and stewardship.
     We  need more poets and musicians and fewer
scientists and lawyers.  We need more potlucks, parties,
and dances and fewer environmental impacts statements.
At times institutional barriers and bureaucratic inertia
seem far more difficult and impenetrable than forging
local plans of action.
      If we want dramatic changes, dramatic new action,
 then we must also be willing to pioneer and experiment
 with new processes, structures, and governance forums
 congruent with our dreams.
      In conclusion, like previous watershed residents,
                               we gather at rivers,
                               streams, and shore-
                               lines. We recognize
                               that economy,  ecol-
                               ogy, and community
                               well being are intrin-
	sically linked, parts of
                               the whole, and can not
                               be separated. We rec-
 ognize that as we restore our streams, we restore our
 neighborhoods and our faim in ourselves and each other.
 We can  stop blaming, pointing fingers, and criticizing
 governmentandstartrollingup our sleeves and turning off
 the water faucet. We recognize that these are "talking"
 issues, not a "taking."
      Today, we gather at Watershed '96. We see diver-
 sity not as aproblem but as our strength. We work together
 inamultiplicity of partnerships. Weaffirm that everyriver
 has its people; that we are all watershed-based people; that
 we all live downstream. We recognize that we no longer
 havetheluxury of seeing in terms of "us vs.them,"but mat
 it is only us, as watershed neighbors, working together,
 like water—gentle and strong. That is the promise that we
 bring  together into the 21st century.  Thank you very
 much. <»

 Achieving Results Community by Go
 A National Satellite Videoconference
 Wednesday, June 12,1996
The  Greenwich Bay Initiative:  A
Watershed-Based  Restoration Effort
Susan C. Adamowicz
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Jonathan Stevens, Margaret Pilaro, and Paula Jewell
Department of Planning, Warwick, Rhode Island
        Greenwich Bay, an embayment of Narragansett
        Bay, encompasses roughly 1.3 square kilometers
        of the most productive shellfish areas on the East
 Coast: this embayment has a history of being the state's
 most active winter shellfish area, withan estimated annual
 economic worth of $4 to 6 million. Greenwich Bay is
 home port to more than 2,500 recreational boats. Perhaps
 the most important aspect of Greenwich Bay is the bond
 that residents have with it. whether through swimming,
 shellfishing, boating, or just enjoying its aesthetic beauty.
 However, all of these benefits have attracted an increased
 density  of year-round homes, and  pressures from this
 density have resulted in wetland destruction and wastewa-
 ter management concerns.
 The Closure

     In December 1992, a severe Nor' Easter triggered an
 extended closure of Greenwich Bay due to prolonged and
 elevated fecal colifonn bacteria levels. The closure and
 related re-evaluation concerningpublichealthissues lasted
 18 months, precipitating stunning economic losses to
 many of the state's full-time sheUflshermen.
     Seeing a need to pool funds and use professional
 expertise with the utmost efficiency in response to the
 crisis, a number of organizations came together in an
 informal coalition. Coalition members include both pri-
 vate and public entities and represent federal, state, and
 local levels of government: the City of Warwick, the
 Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
 (DEM)/NarragansettBay Estuary Program (NBEP), Save
 The Boy, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and
 Rhode Island's Shellfisherman's Association and Coastal
 Resource Management Council. Gradually, over aperiod
 of months, the coalition shaped itself into the Greenwich
 Bay Initiative, a watershed-based effort which crosses
 political boundaries and is administered by  no single
 governmental body. The Greenwich Bay Initiative has
proven to be an innovative and successful watershed
management program.

Attacking the Problem

     The City of Warwick helped establish the overall
goals of the Greenwich Bay Initiative by drafting a strate-
gic plan (Stevens et al., 1994), which was reviewed and
supported by all the primary stakeholders. The plan
identified restoring the bay's water quality as a primary
goal and set a three-year timeline to  make major gains
toward that goal. Other concerns highlighted in the plan
included evaluating the bay's nutrient enrichment status,
restoring high-quality habitats, and amending zoning regu-
lations to further protect sensitive waters.  From the
beginning, it was clear that a cooperative, multi-agency
effort would be necessary to accomplish all these goals,
and specific tasks were allocated to  those groups that
brought the greatest expertise to the task.
A Watershed Detective Story

     The first comprehensive assessment of the bay
came from a wet-weather/dry-weather study conducted
jointly by the state OEM's Division of Water Resources
and the federal Food and Drug Administration.  This
assessment identified streams and stormdrains with sig-
nificant fecal bacterial loadings.  However, all measure-
ments were taken at end-of-pipe locations or at stream
mouths (U.S. Public Health Service, 1994).  As a result,
the Greenwich Bay Initiative knew which areas to focus
on, but did not know exact sources. Hardig Brook, for
example, was found to contribute between 50 to 90 per-
cent of all the fecal colifonn loadings, but the origins of
those loadings were not known—and finding them took
significant detective work.

                                                                                          Watershed '96
     The state DEM/Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
targeted Hardig Brook for action and then co-wrote a
federal grant proposal with Dr. Ray Wright of the Univer-
sity of Rhode Island (URI) for performing a highly fo-
cused study of the Hardig Brook watershed. The proposal
was accepted by the U.S. EPA, and the City of Warwick
used the DEM agreement with theuniversity to piggyback
funds of $ 100,000 for additional investigation in streams
along the northern shore of Greenwich Bay.
     As aresultof an intensive wet-weather/dry-weather
study, Dr. Wright's team was able to identify two major
sources of fecal coliformbacteriain Hardig Brook. Amill
site had direct discharges from anumber of rest rooms that
resulted in significant bacterial counts during dry weather.
During storms, however, even these figures were dwarfed
by fecal inputs further up in the Hardig Brook watershed.
More extensive sampling revealed  that runoff from a
manure storage pile was making its way into a feeder
stream and ultimately into Hardig Brook. Dr. Wright's
process ofisolatingpotential sources providedarapid way
of accounting for the most significant bacterial pollution
entering Hardig  Brook on its way  to Greenwich  Bay.
Unfortunately, Dr. Wright's work in the small streams
along the north  shore was not as  conclusive.  Those
streams had high fecal coliform counts throughout their
length as they flowed through high-density residential
developments with septic system problems.

Other Technical Assistance

     Most of the endeavors under  the Greenwich Bay
Initiative rely on a solid technical/scientific basis. For
example, the Natural Resource Conservation Service and
the Southern Rhode Island Conservation District are pro-
viding engineering and communications as sistancefor the
farm runoff problem. For advanced septic system needs,
theURI's On-siteWastewater Training Center is evaluat-
ing and promoting alternative septic  system technologies
for pathogen and nutrient removal.  URI Sea Grant has
also provided oceanographic expertise to address remain-
ing concerns about the bay's nutrient status, bacterial
input from a series of stormwater discharges, the bay's
currents and circulation as well as  management needs.
The DEM/Narragansett Bay NEP carried out pilot eel-
grass habitat restoration efforts in Greenwich Bay coves
as well  as providing funding for the development of a
shellfish management plan.

      Public outreach and education are key components
 of the Greenwich Bay Initiative. The Natural Resource
 Conservation Service has focused on youth living in the
 watershed by providing teacher training for a middle
 school watershed curriculum. At least two schools are
 making plans to expand the curriculum across several
 grade levels. For older students, the DEM/ Narragansett
 Bay NEP funded a  classroom and shoreside program
 conducted by Save The Bay. Save The Bay also has a very
active volunteer habitat and water-quality monitoring
program. URI's Coastal Resource Center is reaching out
to adults by providing a highly popular intensive training
program for municipal board members and other local
decision makers.

     Securing funding for a wide range of protection and
abatement activities has been very challenging. To help
with funding, the City of Warwick sponsored a $5 million
local bond referendum  geared toward bay restoration.
The R.I. DEM/Narragansett Bay NEP and Save The Bay
sponsored a family-oriented "Bring Back the Bay Day" to
help get the word out to local residents. Save The Bay also
ran a phone bank, which proved critical in making voters
aware of the bond. At the final count, voter turnout was
twice as large as expected, and nearly 70 percent were in
favor of the bay bond.
     One million dollars from the bond went to fund the
Warwick Sewer Authority's On-site Rehabilitation Pro-
gram, which provides up to $4,000 to homeowners in a
40:60 grant/loan combination. An additional $1.5 million
was set aside for stormwater studies and remediation, and
$2.5 million was earmarked for extending sewers through
a shoreline area with nearly 1,000 apartment and condo-
minium units—all of which currently rely on inadequate
septic systems.
     The bond funds proved doubly helpful. Not only
were they used to expand Dr. Wright's work, but they have
also been used as match for a variety of federal funds
obtained through different coalition members such as the
DEM/Narragansett Bay Estuary  Program, the DEM's
Nonpoint Source Program, and URI/Sea Grant.
Watershed Benefits

      This case study has shown that a wide range of inter-
related issues  such as water quality, land use, habitat
protection, stormwater management and institutional con-
cerns can be addressed using a watershed approach. As an
operational model, it can be used in other states or sub-
      The cooperative spirit of the Greenwich Bay Initia-
tive has opened up opportunities for public/private part-
nerships with a corresponding diversity of funding sources.
By working together, stakeholders are able to produce
hard numbers to support and direct remediation actions
with a greater degree of efficiency and effectiveness.

Stevens, Jonathan, William DePasquale,  Jr., Michael
      Brusseau, Kristin Saccoccio (1994). GtyofWarwick
      Strategic Plan for the Reclamation of Greenwich
U.S.  Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administra-
      tion (1994). Greenwich Bay,  RI Shellfish Growing
      Area Survey  and Classification Considerations,
      April and June, 1993.

                                                                            WAT E Ft S H E D '96
 A National Satellite Videocohjferj^^^.
  Wednesday, June 12,1996
 Working  Together to  Renew the
 Milwaukee  River Basin
 James R. D'Antuono
 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
          Milwaukee, the city with the Indian name mean-
          ing "gathering of the waters," celebrates its
          150th birthday this year. It is located in south-
 eastern Wisconsin at the confluence of three rivers (the
 Milwaukee, theMenomonee, and theKirrnickinnic) which
 drain into Lake Michigan. The rivers come together in
 downtown Milwaukee to form a freshwater estuary.
      Five hundred miles of streams and more than 100
 lakes form the life blood of the drainage area called the
 Milwaukee River Basin, which encompasses nearly 900
 square miles. The drainage basin includes six watersheds
 and portions of 7 counties, 31 townships, 14 cities, and 23
 villages.  It is home to more than a million people.
      Over the years, the cumulative effects of some
 unsustainable practices and environmental mistakes have
 compromised the vitality of our lakes and streams. Twenty-
 five years ago, many of our major streams and tributaries
 were overwhelmed by inadequately treated sewage and
 industrial wastes  from treatment plants and industries.
 Ten years ago, unchecked runoff from hundreds of farms
 contributed sediment, bacteria, and excessive nutrients to
 the basin's surface and grouridwater resources. Until two
 years  ago, combined  sewer overflows in the downtown
 Milwaukee area gushed millions of gallons of untreated
 sewage and contaminated stormwater into the basin's
 three major rivers and Lake Michigan more than 40 times
 annually. Even today, despite significant, ongoingprogress
 in stormwater management, small rainstorms flush thou-
 sands of pounds of pollutants from the basin's 250 square
 miles of urban areas into waterways.
     In the spring of 1993, Milwaukee made headlines
 when  heavy  rains and excessively  high  spring runoff
 contributed to a catastrophic outbreak of cryptosporidiosis
 from bacteria contamination of the city water supply.
 More than 400,000 persons became ill; an estimated 100
 died. In response to the 1993 crisis, the Milwaukee Water
 Works Plant adopted new water quality standards far more
 stringent than state and federal regulations. The utility put
intoplacenew operational methods and monitoring equip-
 ment, none of which are required by law.  Since then,
 indicators of water quality have surpassed state and fed-
 eral standards on a daily basis.  There has not been a
 recurrence of waterborne disease in Milwaukee.
      Ultimately, the best protection against water con-
 tamination  crises such as  the  1993 outbreak of
 cryptosporidiosis is comprehensive watershed protection.
 In the Milwaukee River Basin, through a multi-faceted
 watershed program, we are making exemplary progress in
 controlling runoff pollution; at the same time, we are
 upgrading control of point-source pollution. In Wiscon-
 sin, the beginnings of apriority watersheds program date
 back to 1978, when the concept of identifying and target-
 ingmajor sources of polluted runoff was introduced by the
 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wa-
 ter resources management program. At present, the prior-
 ity watersheds program is going strong, working in coop-
 eration with many local units of government.

 Citizen Involvement and Public Education

      Since 1985, citizen advisory groups have served as
 partners with the DNR in preparing plans and implement-
 ing programs which stress cost-effective means for im-
 proving water quality. The DNR has relied upon more
 than 350 people to play active roles on the ten committees
 formed to develop management plans for the basin's six
 watersheds.  The University of Wisconsin-Extension
 played a key role in the early phases of the project. Today,
 their assistance in developing and implementing rural and
 especially urban information and educational programs is
     A highlight of the basinwide education effort has
 been the ongoing Testing the Waters program.  Since
 1990, more than 15,000 students from 37 high schools
 have collected water quality information at 40 locations.
 Officials from many communities participate in an annual
 spring meeting where solutions to pollution problems are
discussed with the students.

                                                                                         Watershed '96
Point Source Pollution Control
     All of the basin's sewage treatment plants either
have been or are in the process of being upgraded to meet
at least secondary levels of treatment. In October 1994,
the City of Milwaukee became the first community in the
Great Lakes area to be permitted under the municipal
stormwater provisions of the Clean Water Act. The city's
management program under the permit includes follow-
ing pollution preventionmeasures, upgradingurbanhouse-
keeping practices, conducting monitoring, constructing
best management  practices, and  implementing a
stormwater management education campaign.
     The Milwaukee  Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MMSD) provides wastewater treatment for most of the
Milwaukee area.  The highlight of the MMSD water
pollution abatement program is the  17 miles of deep
tunnel lyingSOOfeetbeneath the Milwaukee, Menomonee,
and Kinnickinnic Rivers. The tunnel can store up to 400
million gallons of combined sewer overflow until it can be
pumped to treatment plants. Since early 1994, the tunnel
system has kept 17 billion gallons of combined sewer
overflow from reaching the rivers and Lake Michigan.

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
      The six watersheds in the Milwaukee River basin
were designated as priority areas in 1984, under the
Wisconsin DNR's nonpoint source pollution abatement
program. The planning process resulted in a comprehen-
sive evaluation of all rural and urban nonpoint pollution
sources. More than 1,200 farms were identified as con-
tributing significant amounts of pollution to the wetlands,
streams, lakes, and groundwater. Runoff from about 150
square miles of existing and planned urban land uses was
also identified as a critical source of pollution in 30 of the
basin's 37 communities.
      A decade later, we have achieved unparalleled co-
 operation in controlling runoff pollution. Rural nonpoint
 source pollutionhas been greatly reduced onnearly half of
 the problemareasidentifiedatthebeginningof the project.
This reduction has been achieved by preparing and fol-
 lowingnutrientmanagementplans.constructing barnyard
 practices. The DNRhas contributed more than $6 million
 to provide local staff, technical assistance, and cost shar-
 ing for design and installation of practices. Landowners
 havecontributedabout$2 million in matching funds or in-
 kind contributions.
      Participation in efforts to curtail urban runoff pollu-
 tionhas been equally strong. Twenty-seven of the basin's
 30 communities with land uses contributing significant
 runoff pollution problems are participating. Nearly $10
 million dollars has been invested by the DNR, and local
 government entities have contributed an additional $3
 million in matching funds.
      Urban runoff controls have emphasized three areas:
 adopting and enforcing construction site erosion control
 ordinances, conducting information and education pro-
 grams, and implementing improvements in urban house-
 keeping activities such as street sweeping, catch basin
 cleaning, and vehicle maintenance. In developing areas,
we are focusing on stormwater management planning and
adoption of ordinances to regulate water quality and
     Stormwater management plans have been prepared
for about one third of the urban area. An estimated 3,000
feet of streambank have been stabilized.  Two dozen
structural best management practices including detention
ponds, infiltration devices, multi-treatment tank systems,
and artificial wetlands have been constructed.

Habitat Restoration

     Aquatic habitat restoration efforts have focused on
portions of streams impounded by the more than 50 dams
in the basin. The DNR has worked with local units of
government to identify opportunities for removing dams.
Currently we have assisted in the removal of,three dams.
More than three river miles of impounded water is now
flowing free once again. Nearly 200 acres of new upland
and wetland habitat have been created. Water quality has
improved dramatically, and native fish populations  are
      Wetland and upland habitat restoration efforts have
focused on integrating the priority watershed project with
federal conservation reserve and wetland restoration pro-
grams. In addition, we are cooperating with a number of
nonprofitorganizations to pro vide grant funds to purchase
land or conservation easements along tributaries and in
upland areas.

In-Place Pollutant Management

      Contaminated sediment has been a significant pol-
lution source throughout the basin. In 1994, the DNR, the
City of Cedarburg, and an industry cooperated to remove
approximately 9,000 cubic yards of sediment highly con-
taminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from
Cedar Creek. This major tributary of the Milwaukee River
was suspected of carrying  PCBs downstream.
      A PCB mass balance study and sediment mapping
project are underway for the Milwaukee River. Sediment
 contamination in downstream areas is being characterized
 and measured through development of a geographic infor-
 mation system.  This will be an important tool in selecting
 and implementing cost-effective remediation solutions.

A Clean Water Future

      Efforts to restore the Milwaukee River Basin are
 continuing. The water quality in the basin is improving,
 and this improvement is being recognized. Last year, the
 City of Milwaukee committed $10 million dollars for
 further development of the downtown riverwalk along the
 Milwaukee River.
      As mentioned  earlier, the city of Milwaukee has
 been under a stormwater permit since 1994. The newest
 challenge facing managers in the basin will be the start of
 stormwater permitting in the greater Milwaukee metro-
 politan area. Because of interconnecting municipal sepa-
 rate storm sewer systems and upstream discharges into the
 greater Milwaukee River basin, we are concerned that

Corvference Proceedings
some southeast Wisconsin municipalities may be signifi-
cant contributors to stormwater discharges. During Au-
gust 1996, the Wisconsin DNR, through a partnership
process, began designating 21 southeastern Wisconsin
communities to participate in the municipal stormwater
discharge permit program. Letters have been  sent to the
mayors of these communities advising them of next steps
toward implementing the program.

Achieving Results Community by Cbinmuiiity:
A National Satellite Videoconference
Wednesday, June 12,1996
                        •h  * r
The Henry's Fork Watershed
Janice Brown
Henry's Fork Foundation
Dale Swensen
Fremont-Madison Irrigation District
       Located ineastemldaho and western Wyoming, the
       Henry's Fork watershed covers 1.7 million acres
       and includes part of Yellowstone National Park
 and the western slope of the Teton Mountains. It is laced
 with more than 3,000 miles of rivers, streams, and irriga-
 tion canals. High mountain streams and abundant spring
 sources provide nutrient-rich waters of constant flow and
 temperature.  These conditions sustain healthy popula-
 tions of fish and wildlife, including several threatened and
 endangered species.
      Three Idaho counties—Fremont, Teton, and Madi-
 son —and Wyoming's Teton County lie within the Henry' s
 Fork basin. The combined population of these counties is
 40,000. The basin was originally settled by Mormon and
 Lutheran homesteaders who built irrigation canals and
 storage reservoirs to augment the water supply.  Existing
 canals divert water from Henry's Fork, the Fall River, the
 Teton River, and smaller tributaries, and irrigation water
 is stored in dams built on Henry's Lake, Henry's Fork, and
 the Fall River.
      Agriculture is important in the Henry's Fork Basin;
 the primary crops are potatoes and grains.  More than
 235,000 acres of farmland are irrigated using surface or
 groundwatersourcesinthebasin. Recreationand tourism
 are also important sectors of the economy that depend
 heavily on the basin's water resources. Other sources of
 employment and income include  government  and the
 timber products industry. In recent decades, these differ-
 ent sectors were increasingly separated by conflict over
 waterresourcemanagementissues.  On theonehand were
 hydropowcr requirements and increasing demands  for
 irrigation water; on the other hand, fisheries and recre-
 ation-based businesses depended on in-streara flow  for
 their continued existence.
       In 1993, the Idaho Legislature passed the Henry's
 Fork Basin Plan as a framework for dealing with these
 controversial issues. As a result of the plan, new develop-
 ments such as dams, diversions, and hydroprojects were
 prohibited on 195  miles of the Henry's Fork and its
 tributaries. Recommendations in the plan dealt with water
quality, fish and wildlife protection, and irrigation water
     As a means of implementing the recommendations
and achieving long-term goals in the basin, an innovative,
consensus-building process  was  developed so that all
parties with interests in the watershed could be included in
decision making.  At least 25 federal, state, and local
agencies were found to have management or regulatory
jurisdiction in the Henry's Fork Basin—a situation that
contributed to fragmented planning and decision making.
Lack of agency coordination was hindering progress in
addressing soil erosion, water delivery, and water quality
problems, thereby worsening rather than solving prob-
lems arising from the sector divisions in the basin. To turn
this situation around, citizens and agency representatives
began, in 1993, to craft anew, nonadversarial approach to
reconciling watershed issues in the Henry's Fork Basin.
      Over the winter of 1993-94, the Henry's Fork Wa-
tershed Council was organized and chartered by the 1994
Idaho legislature. The charter identifies four major duties
for the Henry's Fork Watershed Council:

    •  Cooperate in  resource studies and planning  that
       transcend jurisdictional boundaries, still respect-
       ing themission, roles, and water and other rights of
       each entity.

    •  Review and critique proposed watershed projects
       and Basin Plan recommendations, suggesting pri-
       orities for their implementation by appropriate

    •  Identify and coordinate funding sources for re-
       search, planning, and implementation, and long-
       term monitoring programs, withfinancing derived.
       from both public and private sectors.

    •  Serve as an educational resource to the state legis-
       lature and the general public, communicating the

Conference Proceedings
       council's progress through regular reports, media
       forums, and other presentations.

      The council's mission statement was fashioned by
consensus and reads as follows:

       The Henry's  Fork  Watershed Council  is  a
       grassroots, community  forum  which uses  a
       nonadversarial, consensus-based approach to prob-
       lem solving and conflict resolution among citi-
       zens, scientists, and agencies with varied perspec-
       tives.  The Council is taking the initiative to better
       appreciate the complex watershed relationships in
       the Henry's Fork Basin, to restore and enhance
       watershed resources where needed, and to main-
       tain a sustainable watershed  resource base for
       future generations.   In addressing social,  eco-
       nomic, and environmental concerns in the basin,
       Council members will respectfully cooperate and
       coordinate with one another and abide by federal,
       state, and local laws and regulations.

      The Henry's Fork Watershed Council is comprised
of citizens, scientists, and agency representatives  who
reside, recreate, make a living, and/or have legal respon-
sibilities in the basin, thus ensuring a collaborative ap-
proach to resource decision making. The number of par-
ticipants in the council is notlimited. Participating members
are organized into three component groups:
Citizens' Group:  Members of the public with
commodity, conservation, and/or community de-
velopment interests have an integral role in coun-
cil affairs by being on equal footing with other
participants. The citizens' group reviews agency
proposals and plans for their relevance to local
needs and whether all interests are treated equita-

Technical Team: The team is composed of scien-
tists and technicians from government, academia,
and the private sector.  The team's role is to serve
as resource specialists for the council, coordinat-
ing and monitoring research projects, launching
needed studies andreviewing any ongoing work in
the basin. Duplication of research is minimised
through technical team guidance;  the results of
research is to  be integrated into council discus-

Agency Roundtable: Theroundtablehas represen-
tatives of all local, state, and federal entities with
rights or responsibilities in the basin, including the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.  The agencies  are
working to align their policies and management to
watershed resource concerns and needs.  Discus-
sions seek to ensure close coordination and prob-
lem solving among agencies, as well as to clarify
legal mandates of each entity.
                                      The Council's Working Criteria

      The Henry's Fork Watershed Council has developed ten primary criteria for evaluating the merits of projects or
programs advanced by agencies or other council members.  These criteria, distilled from a starting list of 80 different
ideas for watershed health and vitality, are the following:

    •  Watershed perspective:  Does the project employ or reflect a total watershed perspective?
    •  Credibility: Is the project based upon credible research or scientific data?
    •  Problem and solution: Does the project clearly identify the resource problems and propose workable solutions
       that consider the relevant resources?
    •  Water supply: Does the project demonstrate an understanding of water supply?
    •  Project management: Does project management employ accepted or innovative practices, set realistic time
       frames for their implementation, and employ an effective monitoring plan?
    •  Sustainability:  Does the project emphasize sustainable ecosystems?
    •  Social and cultural: Does the project sufficiently address the watershed's social and cultural concerns?
    •  Economy: Does the project promote economic diversity within the watershed and help sustain a healthy
       economic base?
    •  Cooperation and coordination:  Does the project maximize cooperation among all parties and demonstrate
       sufficient coordination among appropriate groups or agencies?
    •  Legality:  Is the project lawful and respectful of agencies' legal responsibilities?

      Projects endorsed by the Council may seek funding assistance, political support, or interagency cooperation for
their implementation.  The council is working in subwatershed teams at each meeting to identify resource needs
throughout the basin and formulate projects for council sponsorship.

                                                                                          Watershed '96
     Two representative citizen organizations from the
basin have been selected to co-facilitate the council meet-
ings:  the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District and the
Henry's Fork  Foundation.   This Facilitation Team is
chartered to attend to administrative and logistical needs
of thecouncil.coordinateitspubh'cinformation activities,
and submit an annual report of its progress to the legisla-
ture. The Henry's Fork Watershed Fund has been estab-
lished by the State of Idaho to help fund projects in the
     Information sharing is key to the work of the coun-
cil. A Watershed Resource Center is being established in
a local community, in the heart of the basin, to provide a
central library, database repository, and working place for
all those participating in the collaborative watershed pro-
gram. The center will also support the public's need for
watershed  information and  serve as a focal point for
council business.
      In the meantime, information concerning the coun-
cil and its progress may be obtained from either of the two
co-facilitating organizations:

      Henry's Fork Foundation
      Janice Brown, Executive Director
      P.O.  Box 61
      Island Park, Idaho  83429
      Phone: 288558-9041
      Fax:  288558-9842

      Fremont-Madison Irrigation District
      Dale Swensen, Manager
      P.O.  Box 15
      St. Anthony, Idaho 83445
      Phone: 288624-3381
      Fax:  288624-3998

 Achieving Results Community by d'pmmur^t
 A National Satellite Videoconference
 Wednesday, June 12,1996
The  Seco Creek Watershed
Tim Steffens
Texas Agricultural Extension Service
Phillip N. Wright and Tom Fillinger
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
       The Seco  Creek Water Quality Demonstration
       Project (WQPD), established on April 9, 1990,
       comprises 170,670 acres approximately 50 miles
 west of San Antonio. It is a cooperative resource manage-
 ment initiative created through a partnership between the
 U.S. Department of Agriculture  (USDA), the state of
 Texas, and others. Project personnel come from the Texas
 Agricultural Extension Service and the USDA Natural
 Resources Conservation Service. The Consolidated Farm
 Service Agency, the Texas State Soil and Water Conser-
 vation Board, and 22 other participating local, state, and
 federal agencies,  groups, and universities also contribute
 to the effort.  Project staff work with landowners to
 encourage them  to adopt best management practices
 (BMPs) to conserve water, enhance  recharge  of the
 Edwards Aquifer, reduce polluted runoff,  and improve
 water quality in the watershed.
      Within the boundaries of the project are 32,500
 acres of Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, which provide
 approximately eight to ten percent of the total recharge for
 the aquifer; the Edwards Aquifer provides water to about
 1.5 million people daily.  Soil and water  conservation
 practices demonstrated in the Seco Creek WQPD have a
 direct influence on the water quality and yield of the
 aquifer as well  as on  surface water quality from the
 Edwards Plateau  to the Gulf of Mexico.  These BMPs
 affect water resources in the entire state both directly and
     All of the land in the Seco Creek Project is privately
 owned. Landowners have voluntarily installed over 450
 examples of about 60 BMPs. At least one conservation
 BMP is being applied in 76 percent of the project area. In
 some cases, landowners are receiving cost-share assis-
 tance from cooperating agencies; in other cases, only
 technical assistance is being provided.
     Cropland practices now in place include nutrient
management, integrated crop management, and crop resi-
due management. In addition, filter strips and crop resi-
due management  have  increased water infiltration and
decreased runoff carrying sediments, pesticides, and nu
 trients. Filter strip areas with good vegetative cover have
 reduced sediment production to less than 3 percent of that
 in adjacent fields with a 30-percent residue cover. To help
 improve nutrient management, more than 500 soil analy-
 ses have been conducted free of charge. Soil moisture is
 being monitored; to ensure timely irrigation with mini-
 mum waste of water, existing systems are being converted
 to more efficient, fine-tuned irrigation technology such as
 surge flow and low-energy precision application. Nitro-
 gen applications have decreased by approximately 500,000
 pounds in the project area.  Runoff-related losses  of
 nutrients and pesticides from cropland have decreased by
 27 percent, and leaching  losses have decreased by  an
 estimated 40 percent.
      Rangeland makes up about 83 percent of the land in
 the Seco Creek WQPD.  For this reason, many of our
 project activities are directly related to improving water
 quality in rangeland streams and promoting aquifer re-
 charge on rangelands.   On roughly 80 percent  of this
 rangeland, BMPs are being employed, including grazing
 management, riparian management, brush management,
 spring enhancement, water development, cross fencing,
 and wildlife habitat management.
      As an alternative to herbicide use, brush manage-
 ment techniques including mechanical methods and pre-
 scribed fire are being evaluated in terms of their efficacy
 in controlling woody species, enhancing herbaceous pro-
 duction, increasing infiltration, and decreasing runoff and
 erosion.  Other BMPs are in place to benefit wildlife,
 including food plots and water sites, which can reduce the
 time wildlife species spend in riparian zones. One ongo-
 ing project is demonstrating the comparative impact  of
 different grazing and management strategies on vegeta-
 tive production, carrying capacity, water infiltration, and
 soil moisture.  Another project is evaluating different
 types of grasses as options in scenarios for optimum
 rangeland management.
     Planned and recently implemented demonstrations
for grazing land include: employing new livestock water-
ing technology to improve riparian area  management;

                                                                                           Watershed '96
testing the effects of woody plant density on soil moisture
and herbaceous production; and using individual plant
herbicide treatments (as opposed to broadcast applica-
tion) to control the density and distribution of woody plant
species and shape the plant community to benefit hydro-
logic functions in the watershed and also better support
      New demonstrations planned for the coming year
for cropland feature minimum-till and no-till farming to
reduce erosion and sediment production; and plant tissue
analysis as a tool for nutrient management.
      To demonstrate how urban water users can conserve
water and decrease chemical runoff from lawns and resi-
dential landscapes, aproject demonstrating differences in
water and chemical use between native buffalo grass and
St. Augustine grass lawns was initiated last year. This
project included several conventionally landscaped yards
and four buffalo grass lawns.  Results indicate that, for
many homeowners who want a low-maintenance lawn
with low water requirements, buffalo grass can be a wise
choice.  - More  volunteers are being recruited so  that
potential benefits and appropriate uses of this species can
be more fully assessed.
      Two separate projects have evaluated ways to in-
crease water yield from rangeland watersheds  through
vegetation management. The first part of aresearch study
conducted by Bill Dugas, Texas Agriculture Experiment
Station, calculated water use of woody species.  Data
show that a 10-foot-tall Ashe Juniper uses an average of
 10.5 liters of water per day.  The second part,of the study
compared the evapotranspiration from a site where Juni-
perwas removed toacontrol site withJuniperleftin place.
 Data collected over three years show an average increase
 in water yield for potential aquifer recharge of approxi-
 mately 40,000 gallons per acre annually after Ashe Juni-
 per were removed. At a similar demonstration site, annual
 spring flows increased by about 30,000 gallons per acre of
 watershed following removal of approximately 80 per-
 cent of the Juniper.
      Two  projects will begin this year in cooperation
 with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.  One will
 measure changes in water yield over time as a result of
 increased generation of Juniper seedlings, improved her-
 baceous cover, and the compensatory responses of other
 woody vegetation following Juniper control. The other
 study, whichis part of an international research effort, will
 determine how certain physical characteristics of plants
 vary in response to different grazing pressures.
      Ten water and sediment control structures  have
 beeninstalledintheSecoCreekProjectarea. Oneof these
 sites is increasing aquifer recharge by .09 acre-feet per
 inch of rain that falls on its 40-acre watershed. Currently,
 four underground water conservation districts in the re-
 gion are considering installing similar structures to im-
 prove water quality and quantity.
      Surface and ground water quality and quantity are
 being moni tored by the U.S. Geological Survey through a
 cooperative agreement with the  Texas State  Soil and
 WatcrConservationBoard. Eleven precipitation stations,
 nine stream gauges, four automatic stream samplers, and
one independently sampled surface water site provide
data on water quantity and quality. Ground-water samples
have also been collected from 25 shallow wells in the
Leona and Escondido formations and from eight deeper
Edwards aquifer wells. In addition to measuring for the
impacts of BMPs, the samples are intended to describe the
interactions between surface water and ground water in
the area. To date, sample analyses have shown no surface
water quality problems and no contaminants in excess of
EPA  drinking water standards.  The diversity  of
nonvertebrate benthic organisms in the stream channel
has also been monitored as an indicator of water quality.
To date, no water quality degradation has been found.
      The Seco Creek WQDP sponsors a great many
information outreach and educational activities including
news articles, videos, field days, tours, program presenta-
tions, exhibits, and youth education camps. More than
300 tours,  programs, and exhibits have reached over
100,000 people.   Four youth education programs have
involved 75 area youth in resource conservation.  This
year,  project personnel are working on an educational
exhibit and materials to be presented at the next San
Antonio livestock  Exposition.  In addition, they are
cooperating with the Edwards Underground Water Dis-
trict, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commis-
sion, and Kelly Air Force Base in the Groundwater Guard-
ians  Program, an  educational program to increase
awareness of ground-water conservation issues. They are
also working with the Medina Ground Water Conserva-
tion District and Medina Electric Cooperative  to educate
fourth-grade students on what they can do to conserve
water at home.
      The Seco Creek WQPD is a working example of
how  an integrated, cooperative approach can promote
voluntary adoption of best management practices that
protect water quality, improve water yield, and conserve
water resources.  For their efforts and dedication, project
personnel earned the 1994 State  of Texas Governor's
Award for Environmental Excellence in Agriculture. In
 1995, they received the USDA Group Honor  Award for
 Excellence, and in 1995 and 1996, they earned a Certifi-
 cate of Environmental Achievement  from the National
 Awards Council for Environmental Sustainability. Sev-
 eral factors contribute to the project's success including:
 respectfor landowner property rights on the part of project
 personnel; an enthusiastic and cooperative attitude on the
 part of property owners; excellent cooperation between
 the primary agencies; and an excellent information and
 education program.
      As a practical matter, Texas Agricultural Extension
 Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service per-
 sonnel are housed in the same office, which facilitates
 assistance to landowners as well as good communication
 and coordination between representatives of each agency.
 By providing an example of effective resource manage-
 ment, project personnel and landowners hope to help other
 residents of the state to protect and conserve soil and water
 resources for future generations of Texans. *


                                                                                *  4-1 h
Printed on Recyled Paper