FINAL REPORT
of the
NATIONAL
WATERSHED
FORUM
JJ7-JULY 1, 2001
[GTON. VIRGINIA
-------
The Meridian Institute
P.O. Box 1829
Dillon, Colorado 80435
970-513-8340
www.merid.org
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Meridian Institute would like to thank the following organizations for their generous
financial support of the National Watershed Forum:
Environmental Protection Agency
CH2M Hill
ALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
Arch Coal, Inc.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
OHIO COAL ASSOCIATION
Ten nessee Val I ey Autho rity
TetraTech
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Transportation
Weyerhaeuser
-------
.T 1
**"*siif*, f
.-Tifi*!!"**"!"**** -rlMkriBBL*: -Lfe
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL WATERSHED FORUM 5
I. Need for the Forum 5
II. Delegates 6
III. The Regional Watershed Roundtables 6
IV. National Watershed Forum Agenda 6
V. Role of the Meridian Institute 7
VI. Report Overview 8
SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS 9
I. Cross Cutting Recommendations 9
II. Targeted Recommendations I I
A. Funding and Technical Resources 12
B. Structure and Function of Watershed Groups 15
C. Participation and Partnerships 16
D. Education and Outreach 18
E. Leadership and Facilitation 19
F. Source Water Protection 21
G. Instream Flows 23
H. Data Collection and Monitoring, Research Needs, and Information Management _26
I. Watershed Planning and Evaluation 28
J. Smart Growth 30
K. Habitat IIIIIIIIII^I!IIIZIIII!IIII!I"^"^^III~I~~Il32
L. Endangered Species 35
M. Jurisdiction and Coordination 37
N. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 39
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Acronyms
Appendix B - Forum Delegate List
Appendix C - Linda Fisher's Opening Remarks
Appendix D - Innovative Approaches
-------
NATIONAL
FORUM
Budding Partnerships for Healthy Watersheds
iXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Despite the billions of dollars invested over the last several decades in reducing pollutants from
point sources, many problems remain such as siltation, nutrients, pathogens, and metals, as well
as critical habitat loss. Local citizens are increasingly forming partnerships to help address the
complex problems affecting their water resources. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) estimates there are more than 3,000 local watershed groups nationwide. The
proliferation of these groups is changing the nature of environmental protection. These
watershed partnerships provide those people, who depend on aquatic resources for their
health, livelihood, or quality of life, with a voice in decision making processes and a
responsibility in the management of these resources.
The National Watershed Forum (Forum) was held June 27 -July I, 2001 in Arlington, Virginia.
It was an unprecedented event in which 480 community leaders and senior decision makers
from around the country gathered together to give voice to the future of our nation's
watersheds. Geographically, politically, and culturally diverse individuals shared their visions
and explored new directions for cooperative action to sustain watersheds into the next century
and beyond. The Forum was intended to forge stronger partnerships and collaboration, help
empower communities to continue their progress in improving the health of their watersheds,
and educate government agencies about the efforts of the growing watershed movement.
Indeed, it did give local watershed partnerships, private sector and government leaders a unique
opportunity to identify and start taking important steps together to improve the nation's
waters.
The agenda for the Forum was organized in
large part around nineteen issue-specific
discussion groups. Delegates participated in
facilitated dialogues within each discussion
group to develop recommendations for local,
state, regional, tribal and federal policies and
actions to address issues of concern relative to
their group's topic. The delegates focused on
collaborative approaches getting industry and
environmentalists; local, state, tribal, and federal
agencies; scientists; and local citizens to work
together to identify and solve the problems
facing our nation's watersheds. A diverse panel,
comprised of leaders from the private sector,
non-governmental organizations (NGO) and
government agencies heard a summary of some
of the Forum's wide-ranging recommendations
on the afternoon of the second day.
National Watershed Porum
Discussion Groups " "<
Funding and Technical Support -.
Structure and Function of Watershed Sroups
Participation and Partnerships Education and
.Outreach. - ° >-;
Leadership and/aeifitation
Source Water Protection > - i° , /
4nstream Flows - s \ t
Data Collection, Monitoring, Research Needs, and
Information Management"
-WatershedPlanning and Evaluation ,° >'--,
Smart Growth ° - - ^ > <
Habitat. - , ; ' *
Endangered Species x
Jurisdiction and Coordination. ',
Total Maximum Daily Load
-------
; JT;Y - ^r~"--- .--.-....-..- - - - --
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY^
This Report highlights the Forum delegates' recommendations for advancing cooperative
actions to sustain the health of our nation's watersheds. These recommendations address
issues of concern identified by the Regional Watershed Roundtables that met over a two-year
period prior to the Forum, as well as new issues identified by delegates at the Forum. The
recommendations do NOT necessarily represent a consensus of all the delegates who
participated in the Forum or in any particular discussion group. Every watershed faces a
different set of opportunities and challenges. Each functions in the context of its own
geographical and political setting. Therefore, recommendations contained herein represent a
range of alternatives intended to help bolster capacity at the national, regional, state, tribal and
local level to support the vital work of watershed partnerships. These innovative ideas
represent the collective wisdom and successful strategies shared by Forum delegates and serve
as a written history of a landmark event designed to foster collaborative watershed efforts
across the nation.
The Meridian Institute compiled and organized this Report from the "Discussion Group
Proceedings" and from the notes taken during the plenary sessions at the Forum. It was not
possible to capture all the nuances and detail of the discussions that took place in a several day
period in nineteen different discussion groups. We hope that there will be ongoing discussion
through personal communication and electronic media to build upon the important work that
was started at the Forum and to move the recommendations towards implementation.
-------
EXiaUTIVEJUMMARY
Cross Cutting Recommendations
Of the multitude of ideas developed during the discussion group deliberations, a few
surfaced repeatedly and among several discussion groups. They represent common themes
from the Forum:
Increased access to funding for the unique needs of watershed activities.
Increased coordination among agencies and harmonization of regulatory
program implementation.
Improved access to information for all stakeholders.
Ongoing coordination among watershed efforts across the country and the
Regions.
The following eight cross cutting recommendations were highlighted during the plenary
sessions, and/or were developed simultaneously in numerous discussion groups, and/or
would need to be implemented in a coordinated manner by several organizations or
agencies:
A. Develop a flexible, integrated and diversified national watershed strategy/delivery
system.
B. Create a quasi-public (non-federal) Watershed Trust Fund/Endowment to be
used for: restoration, protection, advocacy, education, management, facilitating
local needs, research, and other priorities.
C. Provide additional support, for subsequent Regional Watershed Roundtables and
future National Watershed Forums.
D. Conduct a National Tribal Watershed Forum.
E. Implement a national media campaign to highlight the importance of and foster
general awareness of watershed issues.
F. Establish a "clearinghouse" to provide one-stop shopping that would enhance the
flow of information about watershed protection and restoration, technical
assistance and funding, and other relevant data.
G. Undertake a concerted effort to address the issue of defining "a healthy
watershed", encompassing chemical, biological, physical, hydrological, social,
meteorological, elements, etc. and considering the interrelationships between all
elements.
H. Provide federal coordinators to assist local watershed partnerships.
-------
FIT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Targeted Recommendations
The cross cutting recommendations highlighted above represent only a small fraction of
the valuable and constructive recommendations developed by the Forum delegates.
Additional recommendations are intended to assist Congress, federal agencies in
general, specific agencies, state governments, watershed groups, tribes, and others.
These recommendations are presented in the body of the report according to target
audience within each discussion group. A summary of the discussion group
deliberations is detailed in a companion document, the "Discussion Group Proceedings."
-------
NATIONAL
Building Partnenkips for Heallliy Watershed*
BACKGROUND ON
THE NATIONAL WATERSHED
FORUM
-------
-------
BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL WATERSHED FORUM
The National Watershed Forum (Forum) was held June 27 July 1, 2001 in Arlington,
Virginia with 480 community leaders and senior decision makers from around the
country. The Forum was an unprecedented event designed to give voice to
geographically, politically, and culturally diverse individuals who shared their visions for
the future of our nation's watersheds and explored new directions for cooperative
action to sustain watersheds into the next century and beyond. The Forum was
intended to forge stronger partnerships and collaboration, help empower communities
to continue their progress in improving the health of their watersheds, and educate
government agencies about the efforts of the growing watershed movement.
The Forum resulted in a tidal wave of energy and good ideas for protecting and
restoring watersheds around the country and for supporting the work of local
watershed initiatives. Delegates at the Forum developed recommendations to improve
the success of watershed efforts across the country for a variety of audiences such as
local, state, and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, watershed
partnerships, tribes, foundations, universities and businesses. The Forum also provided
opportunities for the establishment of new networks and alliances among stakeholders
from many sectors, and exchange of innovative tools for watershed protection and
restoration. A description of innovative approaches featured at the Forum is included in
Appendix F.
I. Need for the Forum
Despite the billions of dollars invested over the last several decades in reducing
pollutants from point sources, many problems remain such as siltation, nutrients,
pathogens, and metals, as well as critical habitat loss and endangered species.
Improvements need to be made at the local, state, tribal, regional and national level by
government, private industry, non-governmental organizations, and local citizens.
Overcoming these complex problems requires the commitment of local people who
have a stake in the creeks, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and groundwater flowing through
their neighborhoods and their communities.
Local citizens are increasingly forming partnerships to help address the complex
problems affecting their water resources. The EPA estimates there are more than 3,000
local watershed groups nationwide. The proliferation of local watershed partnerships is
changing the nature of environmental protection and is providing those people who
depend on aquatic resources for their health, livelihood, or quality of life a voice in
decision making processes and a responsibility in the management of these resources.
The Forum gave local watershed groups, private sector and government leaders a
unique opportunity to identify and start taking important steps together to improve the
nation's waters.
-------
BACKGROUNb ON THE^ATIONAL-W^IEBSHED FQRIM
..,,., r.ff'
II.
DELEGATES
The 480 delegates to the Forum were invited to the Forum because of their expertise
and experience with watershed issues. They were drawn from community-based
watershed initiatives; local, state, federal and tribal government; interest groups such as
agriculture, forest products, mining, development, and fishing; environmental
organizations; foundations; and academia. Delegates attended from every state in the
Union. The delegate list is attached as Appendix B.
III. THE REGIONAL WATERSHED ROUNDTABLES
The Forum was the culmination of more than two years of effort by thirteen Regional
Watershed Roundtables. The Roundtables were organized to stimulate dialogue and
interaction among diverse watershed interests, identify barriers to watershed
protection, and begin developing solutions for overcoming the barriers. The conveners
of the Roundtables assembled diverse stakeholders from watersheds in their regions to
identify and begin addressing common challenges.
The experience and findings of the Roundtables served as building blocks for the
National Watershed Forum. A report summarizing the work of the Regional
Watershed Roundtables was provided to all of the Forum delegates to help inform the
Forum deliberations. The first morning of the Forum featured several of the Regional
Watershed Roundtable conveners and other leaders in watershed protection, who
described some of the important challenges facing watershed efforts in their regions.
IV. NATIONAL WATERSHED FORUM AGENDA
The agenda for the Forum was organized in part around "tracks" pertaining to specific
issues. Within each track there were one or more discussion groups addressing
particular topics. In some cases there were two discussion groups discussing the same
topic. Delegates selected a discussion group and over the course of the Forum
participated in facilitated dialogue to develop recommendations for local, state, regional,
tribal and federal policies and actions to address issues of concern relative to their
group's topic. The tracks and discussion groups were organized as follows:
6 =
-------
Track One: - Resources
Funding and Technical Support (Two Discussion Groups)
Track Two Watershed Partnership Effectiveness
Structure and Function of Watershed Groups (Two Discussion Groups)
Participation and Partnerships (Two Discussion Groups)
Education and Outreach (Two Discussion Groups)
Leadership and Facilitation
Track Three - Water Management
Source Water Protection
Instream Flows
Track Four - Information and Research
Data Collection and Monitoring, Research Needs, and Information Management
Track Five - Planning and Evaluation
Watershed Planning and Evaluation (Two Discussion Groups)
Smart Growth
Track Six Ecosystem Management
Habitat
Endangered Species
Track Seven - Policy and Program Implementation
Jurisdiction and Coordination
Total Maximum Daily Load
The tracks were introduced the first morning of the Forum and key recommendations
from the discussion groups were presented to senior governmental and private sector
decision makers in a plenary session near the end of the Forum.
V. ROLE OF THE MERIDIAN INSTITUTE
The Meridian Institute, a non-profit organization focusing on collaborative process
design and facilitation was selected to design, convene, and facilitate the Forum.
Meridian Institute staff worked closely with a Forum Steering Committee to develop the
Forum agenda, draft the background materials, and provide logistical support. In
additional, a core team of Meridian facilitators worked along with a group of federal
employees to facilitate discussion group sessions at the Forum.
-------
BACKGROUND ON THE-NATIQNALWATERSHED FORUM
VI. REPORT OVERVIEW
The body of this report provides a synthesis of the recommendations produced by the
discussion groups. Each discussion groups' detailed issues of concern, recommendations
and implementation strategies are provided in a separate document entitled "Discussion
Group Proceedings." It should be recognized that every watershed is facing a different set
of opportunities and challenges and functions in the context of its own geographical and
political setting. Therefore, some of the recommendations will be very appropriate for
some circumstances, and not in others. It is critical, however, that watershed
partnerships understand the range of alternatives available to them and that information
regarding successful strategies is shared.
-------
FORUM
Building Partnerships for Healthy Watersheds
SUMMARY OF
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
AND FINDINGS
-------
-------
SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS
The Forum delegates developed recommendations to improve the health of watersheds
across the country. Many of the recommendations focused on collaborative approaches
-getting industry and environmentalists; local, state, tribal and federal agencies;
scientists; and local citizens to work together to identify and solve the problems facing
our nation's watersheds. A diverse panel, comprised of leaders from the private sector,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and government agencies heard a summary of
some of the Forum's wide-ranging recommendations on the afternoon of the second
day. These and other key recommendations identified by the discussion groups
represent highlights of the extensive effort put forth by the Forum delegates and are
summarized below. The recommendations do NOT necessarily represent a consensus
of all the delegates who participated in the Forum or in any particular discussion group.
I. CROSS CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS
Numerous themes surfaced from Forum deliberations. Regardless of the substantive
topic area, delegates emphasized needs for:
increased access to funding for the unique needs of watershed activities;
increased coordination among agencies and harmonization of regulatory
program implementation;
improved access to information for all stakeholders; and
ongoing coordination among watershed efforts across the country and the
Regions.
On the final day of the Forum, the following resolution was offered by one of the
discussion groups for consideration by the approximately 200 delegates who were in
attendance at the time. There appeared to be unanimous support for the resolution
from those delegates.
J-jflfa^^^^
-------
I. Cross Cutting Recommendations
,! Li,, i nr ii|||IB|||i|,|||i JIIT iVniilllliliHIIIBilii.!!!, B'l"WKZZ!SE""!;r !'" HI' if
S JiSSS"' .«M.I : S' ' .SfiaSSSSS
The following eight cross cutting recommendations were highlighted during the plenary
sessions, and/or were developed simultaneously in numerous discussion groups, and/or
would need to be implemented in a coordinated manner by several organization or
agencies:
A. Develop a flexible, integrated and diversified national watershed
strategy/delivery system. Insufficient access to technical assistance and scientific
support has limited the potential for success of many watershed efforts across the
county. Delegates recommended that EPA take the lead on the strategic
development (building on local support) of a national watershed strategy/delivery
system. EPA should put together an advisory committee reflecting the diversity of
local watershed movements, and get the buy-in and political support and
participation of key legislators. Specific implementation strategies articulated by
delegates to achieve this recommendation were to:
define a national goal;
document what money is needed and for what areas;
build on local efforts/plans;
provide technical support and guidance;
define research priorities;
promote education/public awareness; and,
target education for foundations, the private sector, individuals, and
government agencies (federal, state, and local).
B. Create a quasi-public (non-federal) Watershed Trust Fund/Endowment to be
used for: restoration, protection, advocacy, education, management,
facilitating local needs, research, and other priorities. A feasibility assessment
of this concept should be conducted and supported by private foundations and/or
government and the private sector - possibly funded from a variety of sources,
(e.g., fines/penalties, corporations, bequests/individuals, permit/impact fees, the
Highway Trust Fund, etc.).
C. Provide additional support for subsequent Regional Watershed Roundtables
and future National Watershed Forums. The vast majority of the delegates
weighing in on the value of the Regional Watershed Roundtables and the National
Watershed Forum felt strongly that they have been a significant value for individual
watershed efforts and the watershed movement nation-wide. Strong
recommendations were voiced about the need to support future watershed
Roundtables and Forums.
D. Conduct a National Tribal Watershed Forum. Tribal representatives in
particular voiced concern about the lack of engagement from tribes, importance of
tribal lands and waters and the need to recognize and support tribal watershed
protection and restoration initiatives. They articulated the need to address the
unique challenges on tribal lands by conducting a watershed forum targeted
specifically at tribal watershed issues.
^=.'- " i i i' " - m i ." B3 |Q. . 3=-
-------
KeMMEN0lONS A1D FINDINGS
^
E. Implement a national media campaign to highlight the importance of and
foster general awareness of watershed issues. Many of the delegates expressed
support for a nation-wide education and awareness campaign targeted at the
general public.
F. Establish a "clearinghouse'11 to provide one-stop shopping that would
enhance the flow of information about watershed protection and
restoration, technical assistance and funding, and other relevant data.
Delegates encouraged the development of a strategy to institutionalize the
dissemination of information about effective watershed management strategies by
establishing such a nation-wide clearinghouse. EPA, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) should
develop a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) website that watershed groups
and local communities can access. Local, state and federal levels should then work
together to fill in gaps. Training must accompany the clearinghouse to help people
access and share data.
G. Undertake a concerted effort to address the issue of defining "a healthy
watershed", encompassing chemical, biological, physical, hydrological,
social, meteorological, elements, etc. and considering the interrelationships
among all elements. The development of the definition should build on the
existing body of research and work. A wide variety of stakeholders need to
contribute to the effort. Regional roundtables could come up with a definition of
what they identify as "a healthy watershed" and bring the definition to the next
national watershed forum. Groups as diverse as The American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS), individual landowners, and federal agencies
should be involved in developing this definition, and full advantage should be taken
of internet communications technology.
H. Provide federal coordinators to assist local watershed partnerships.
Delegates in several of the discussion groups supported the idea of federal
agencies (e.g., NOAA, USDA, EPA, etc.) working together to establish government
coordinators that are in local/field offices, similar to the American Heritage River
Navigator model. These coordinators would serve as a resource on a variety of
levels including general information, technical assistance, funding and education,
etc. An alternative perspective called for one federal coordinator at the national
level to provide for greater efficiency and accessibility.
II. TARGETED RECOMMENDATIONS
The cross cutting recommendations highlighted in the previous section represent only a
small fraction of the valuable and constructive recommendations developed by the
Forum delegates. Additional recommendations summarized below targeted Congress,
federal agencies in general, specific agencies, state and local governments, foundations,
watershed groups, tribes, the private sector, and others.
II
-------
Jgl JE^gMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS,,
f i I. 7;- --; |
A. Funding and Technical Recommendations
A. Funding and Technical Resources
A major thread in the funding and technical resources discussion was that funding
priorities should include preservation, prevention, and restoration. Funding is needed
to support watershed coordinators, watershed assessment and planning, interagency
coordination, watershed group capacity building, ongoing management and maintenance
of programs, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) processes, and evaluation of progress.
Local watershed groups need gap funding to assist in maintaining progress that has been
made between major funding cycles/opportunities. In addition, timing issues need to be
addressed. It can be very difficult for local watershed efforts to coordinate matching
funds from private and public sources due to the time lag associated with federal and
state funds. Reimbursement based grants/contracts can create problems if there is no
opportunity to receive some portion of the cash up front. While the discussion groups
recommended a number of ways of increasing federal and state support of local
watershed efforts, delegates were concerned that such initiatives not add another layer
of bureaucracy to the system.
Significant recommendations to address funding issues included:
Federal Agencies and Congress
I) Form a new national watershed program and interagency effort to promote
technically sound watershed protection and restoration by providing better
coordinated funding and information in support of watershed efforts, and create
technical assistance grants and block grants for watershed groups.
2) Simplify; make more accessible, timely, flexible and transferable; and expand existing
federal grant programs. Assess the effectiveness of similar existing programs (e.g.,
Community Development Block Grants) to determine what has worked well and
how those approaches might be adapted for this purpose. Strategies recommended
by the discussion groups included:
Lower funding matches to a minimum of 20% across the board.
Encourage pre-proposal concept papers for requests for proposals.
» Establish micro-grants.
Allow 15-20% overhead in grants.
Make Transportation Equity Act (TEA) 21 funds more accessible and easier
to obtain by watershed groups.
Encourage more states to allow a portion of Section 319 Clean Water Act
(CWA) funds to cover administrative costs.
Address problems associated with local watershed groups obtaining Corps of
Engineers funds.
12
-------
^^n^ngXnB5tee^S^^ecbmmeri'clati.o.ns
Find ways watershed initiatives can use Federal Emergency Management
Agency funding, which is available during emergencies.
Utilize monies obtained through fines and penalties in support of watershed
activities.
Explore opportunities for use of funds like those provided by the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act in coastal areas.
Allocate monies in the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund back to the
states so that it can be used in support of watershed activities.
Establish a Watershed Restoration Trust Fund similar to Superfund.
Allow local jurisdictions more room to maneuver in fulfilling drinking water
source area protection priorities by building flexibility into programs like
Community Development Block Grants, Appalachian Regional Commission's
Revolving Loan Fund, Conservation Reserve Program, Economic
Development Administration (EDA), Department of Transportation (DOT)
programs, etc.
Provide watershed groups with financial support when they are asked to perform
services, such as commenting on regulations or providing guidance or participation
in projects, for units of government.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and/or NOAA should establish a lead
person in every local office (e.g. Extensions - land grant and sea grant, Resource
Conservation and Development Councils (RC&Ds), conservation districts, etc.)
responsible for working with watershed groups.
States
5) Implement programs such as the Clean Water Management Trust Fund in North
Carolina where a specific allocation of funds are targeted for watershed efforts.
6) Provide funding to support watershed group involvement in state and local level
policy making processes related to implementation of the CWA and other priorities.
7) Allocate a portion of construction funds from private developers and Clean Water
State Revolving Loan Funds to education/communication efforts.
8) Implement a "Green Contractor" program certificate. A model for this exists in
North Carolina. Developers who meet the criteria receive a decal to make visible
. that they are "green".
13 =
-------
SLIMMARYJDF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS
«^*^i5~ li'iiiril'r *"" * 1^1 jj
14 r
J
A. Funding and Technical Recommendations ^ -
'' " '
Watershed Groups
Watershed groups should improve their financial stability by creating business and strategic
plans; collaborating with industry, foundations, agencies, nongovernmental organizations and
citizens; implementing publicity, outreach, and education strategies; diversifying sources of
funding and technical support; and improving fundraising skills. Many of the following
recommendations directed to watershed groups speak to these needs:
9) Seek opportunities to collaborate with other watershed groups on funding strategies
and approaches whenever feasible, in part to show foundations that groups are
collaborating rather than competing for limited resources.
10) Educate foundations and the private sector as to the key role that watershed health
plays in community health and welfare, and the economic significance of watersheds
and why they should invest in these efforts.
11) Cultivate interest from wealthy individuals within communities, (e.g., target members
to write bequests in support of watershed activities/organizations into their wills).
12) Target the development community and other private sector funding sources for a
variety of types of assistance.
Foundations
13) Fund organizations like River Network that can coordinate funding as well as provide
training and technical support to smaller organizations.
14) Foundations and private sector partners could develop/provide a common, user-
friendly software to provide funding support and assistance for organizations.
Corporate!Private Sector
15) Leaders from the private sector who believe in watershed protection and restoration
work should "push for the cause".
16) Implement "Earth Shares" type programs that operate like United Way for nonprofits
involved in watershed efforts donating from each paycheck to a cause, with
corporations matching employee donations.
17) Fortune 500, private corporations should participate in conferences like the Forum.
Local Governments
18) Collect impact fees from 'sprawl development' due to impacts to streams from
impervious surfaces.
19) Tax developers when they file their Notices of Intent.
-------
FINDINGS
J^^s^Ss*-: B. StructurKand?|pp|giiofiA/atershedj&roups;~
B. Structure and Function of Watershed Groups
All of the recommendations developed in the discussion group that focused on
structure and function were directed at watershed groups.
Watershed Groups
20) Increase communication and facilitation skills in order to plan and conduct
meetings in which meaningful decisions are made, for example by: identifying
groups that are there to help, accessing training to develop internal
communication and facilitation skills, and inviting other active established
watershed groups to provide advice and assistance.
21) Develop a vision statement that represents diverse interests. In doing so, obtain
skilled facilitators to manage the process, define the decision making process
upfront needed to reach agreement, and communicate a vision statement.
22) Encourage all stakeholders to participate in identifying problems, taking actions,
and monitoring impacts. Develop partnerships with and among community
decision-makers and public and private organizations within the watershed. A
number of strategies for involving diverse interests and building partnerships are
detailed in the following Participation and Partnerships section.
23) Develop networking capabilities to benefit from one another's experience and to
help promote credible processes, share models, facilitate information exchange,
increase communication, support constituency building, and improve capacity for
organizational effectiveness.
24) A watershed "circuit rider" position should be created and supported by public
and private funding sources to help build the structure and capacity of watershed
groups. Some strategies for implementing the circuit rider recommendation could
include:
Looking at areas where a circuit rider exists and use them as examples of
successes to fully implement a nation-wide effort.
Developing pilots to demonstrate benefits of the concept - successes in
funding, goal achievement, outcomes, impacts, etc.
Developing an evaluation system to measure performance and effectiveness.
Include watershed groups and funders in this process.
Looking to foundations and/or nonprofits to provide a national support
mechanism to support training and capacity building for circuit riders.
15 E
-------
SUMMAR? OFKEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS
J-p, i^iiiii....i.ini i fjm it r nil Mm 11 i", ill j ifiHlll(lii|iiil'ji jfi [IJ(flii if i.
C, Participation and Partnerships
^ "
C. Participation and Partnerships
The discussion on participation and partnerships focused on the overarching needs for
watershed awareness and education, local capacity building, and technical assistance.
Three key topics were identified that need to be addressed in order to make watershed
initiatives successful: trust, structure and coordination of activities, and process. Public
distrust in government is a key issue determining whether citizens participate in a
watershed initiative. Building trust requires openness and commitment to accountability
by all involved individuals and entities, including government agencies. Problems arising
from top-down approaches to governing and the lack of coordination among the
number of government programs relevant to watershed initiatives create an important
need for coordination of activities among agencies and between agencies and watershed
groups. Coordination is necessary for a number of reasons, including streamlining
similar agency efforts and making resources more accessible to watershed groups.
Watershed groups need to develop more effective processes to motivate and maintain
participation by key stakeholders and help ensure more successful collaborative
watershed efforts. If processes are poorly attended and time consuming, stakeholders
may resort to legal procedures or political influence to secure their interests.
The key recommendations relative to participation and partnerships included:
Federal, Tribal, State and Local Governments
25) Provide "fast-track" training to an individual who will be a place-based, watershed
coordinator (this would be a position comparable to existing River Navigator
positions), whose role will be to identify and locate appropriate programs,
information, technical assistance, funding and education and provide fast-track
access to agencies and key decision makers.
26) Agencies should play an enabling role in supporting stakeholders to "own" their
watershed initiative. They need to continually facilitate the involvement of local,
grassroots initiators to stimulate the bottom-up process of community
engagement in watershed issues. Agencies should look at existing successful
examples and organizations such as AmeriCorps and VISTA National Service
Programs and so-called "friends of groups that provide local "sparkplugs" to
support community engagement.
27) Supply sound cross-regional water science. Data need to be internally compatible,
broadly accessible, and widely disseminated.
28) Move agency focus and resources to ongoing involvement in watershed efforts
instead of relying on a project-based focus. Agencies should make working with
watershed groups a performance criterion for staff.
16-=
-------
SUMMARY OF KETREeQMMENDATlONS AND FINDINGS
&.*,- .^. *!--^feiai-|i|ipation=anci Partnerships
Watershed Groups
29) Leaders of watershed initiatives need to build trust, which is the basis for
establishing and maintaining successful watershed partnerships. Guiding principles
for partnerships should be: transparency of participants' interests, objectives,
values, outcomes, and needs; acknowledgement of all stakeholders' interests; and
representation of the community's diversity.
30) Partnerships should define and make transparent their structure and processes,
including the decision making processes.
31) Watershed groups need to develop a process that includes the following
characteristics: goal-oriented, inclusive, informed, coordinated at all levels, and
adapts to meet (changing) interests of all members. Strategies to develop an
effective process include:
Meeting with stakeholders individually to learn about their interests and
changes in interests.
Managing and communicating expectations, absolving blame, and setting
ground rules and procedures early.
Showing successes and accomplishments.
Requiring participating organizations to vest decision making authority in
their representatives to the watershed group.
Asking watershed group members to commit to specific terms and
consistently participate.
Using MOUs to better define roles and obligations.
32) Most successful partnerships have a coordinator. The coordinator should exhibit
a number of specific qualities, including: concern for natural and cultural resources;
excellent communication skills; and, ability to motivate citizens to be stakeholders.
The following actions can help stimulate participation and build partnerships:
Determine priority environmental issues to be remedied.
Identify quality of life issues, and use campaigns to encourage people to take
ownership of their watershed.
Identify diverse participants and potential support groups.
Sponsor stream teams in the watershed that monitor local conditions.
Consider interests ("what is in it for them") of the corporations that are
intimately tied to the water.
Sell successes make sure people know about them, use the media.
Identify and use proper measurements of success.
17 BE
-------
SJJMMAWFKi? "filCBSfENDATIONS AND?li\iDII\lGS"
_ 3»»»i iff"'""'! »inrn-i«ini i mnpiipii m«|f|i(i« ppj pnfi if
D. Education and Outreach
D. Education and Outreach
While government may carry the initial responsibility for developing and funding educational
programs, to varying degrees, all stakeholders share some responsibility for education.
Education should be broad-based for the more general public, as well as targeted to specific
audiences. There need to be different messages for each, but both are very important and
hard to find funding for. Focus on the delivery of education rather than the development of
educational tools (enough tools exist already).
Federal Agencies
33) The key recommendation relative to education and outreach was that the EPA should
lead a multi-agency effort, working with an advisory committee from the Forum, to
fund and implement a national media campaign to promote awareness of water and
watershed related issues. Education and Outreach discussion group members offered
to form an Education and Outreach Committee, to help guide the campaign and
provide assistance with message development, strategy, and rollouts to regions, states,
and locales. It was recommended that a public relations/marketing firm be hired to
design a media campaign and craft a message that has the potential for impact similar
to that achieved by the "Got Milk?" campaign (e.g., "Got Water"). Part of the national
media campaign should be the designation of May as Watershed Month. Also the
campaign could be integrated into the 30th anniversary celebration of the CWA.
34) Implement a public education program about the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Organizers and Participants in the National Watershed Forum
35) An important aspect of education and outreach is the follow-up from the Forum. The
Forum results need to be broadly disseminated to key players. For example, the
Interagency Watershed Coordinating Team needs to transmit the recommendations
to decision makers in federal agencies and a letter should be sent to the National
Governors Association. Forum delegates need to work through their networks (e.g.,
Regional Roundtables, local watershed groups, etc.) to contact governors, members of
Congress etc., asking them to endorse/support the national media campaign and
designation of May as Watershed Month.
Watershed Groups
36) Education and communication strategies need to be incorporated into the fund raising
process. Only in this way will potential funding sources understand the very
important role played by watershed initiatives.
37) Create and utilize opportunities to celebrate rivers, watersheds etc. (e.g., National
Watershed Day)
38) Educate targeted audiences on the benefits of drinking water source protection
activities, (e.g. protecting and restoring riparian buffers and wetlands). Education and
awareness should further include the importance of water; characterize how
degradation occurs and the negative effects of using poor quality water sources; how
watersheds function, basic hydrology; etc.
-------
.- - , - JT.LV.-""?;TT
-i-%;,rt;i^jA;,r'TT^ ^.
E. Leadership and Facilitation
There are a number of challenges and issues that hinder efforts to lead and facilitate
watershed initiatives. It is difficult to convene and sustain a volunteer based watershed
effort, especially in places without much money. There is often not enough time for
leaders/public officials to work on issues or build support. Lack of trust is apparent in
many watershed initiatives, (e.g., when there is a perception that the process is driven
by outsiders who lack credibility). One strategy for addressing trust issues is neutral
facilitation by someone who has the ability to elicit input, draw everyone in, provide
meeting structure, deliver time management, set ground rules, bring the information
down to an appropriate level of understanding, etc.
In addition to utilization of neutral outside facilitators, there is a need to train facilitators
within watershed groups to help run efficient meetings. However, this type of training is
expensive and many groups cannot afford or take the time to attend long training
sessions.
The key recommendations relative to leadership and facilitation included:
Federal, Tribal, State and Local Governments
39) Build sustainable, local capacity by funding leadership and facilitation training using
the following strategies:
Use of trained agency conflict resolution specialists to support watershed
initiatives.
Establish a toolbox that provides methods, techniques, materials, approaches,
etc., for developing and delivering facilitation skills and training.
Create a web-based list: of names and resources for facilitation.
Allow collaboration and facilitation training to be an expense in applications
for federal grants.
Work with universities and colleges to establish collaborative education
programs that address watershed issues. (Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
may be an appropriate agency for this initiative).
40) Empower agency representatives who work with watershed groups to make
decisions and commitments and to clarify what decisions they can and cannot
make.
41) The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) should establish an ombudsman to
work with foundations, agencies and tribal governments on watershed issues.
42) Provide training for local officials and staff in the areas of watershed management,
leadership and facilitation.
19 =
-------
Leaderhip and Facilitation
liH'!!!.!!' 'ffii'iill''''^^::!!!','',!.!!;, "S'tA, 1J IS'iS'1'!"1!'!!!!!!!!!"!!!'!!'!!,'!!!!'"!!!1!1'1!!!1 |jjjlj||S ' ('''"HI"'*!! '''f"4'\ t',!'!"nl i!'''!i!!i|'i!l!'!liiii' !,,,,,, '' , ' '' . '' iii'i'/.'lf!11:"!!"'[!',
!^«»aiis«aiiB3iiiicB!as^^ ;:;:,:; 'V.V^MII
P
43) The Corporation for National Service should establish a watershed initiative with
VISTA and AmeriCorps. This will cultivate the next generation of leaders.
Universities and Colleges
44) Universities should provide students with training on how to facilitate. They
should promote or require internship programs for these purposes.
Watershed Groups .
45) Watershed groups should coordinate with other groups in their area to have
facilitation training together. Trained people from watershed groups should train
other members of their group.
20'
-------
F. Source Water Protection
The discussion on source water protection focused on three key needs: integration of
existing Acts and other source water protection efforts, education of all levels of
stakeholders about source water protection, and provision of incentives to stakeholders
to take part in watershed protection activities. Delegates also recognized the need to
improve drinking water source assessments prepared by states to help make the quality,
completeness, and accessibility of the assessments more uniform. Targeted education of
stakeholders will help to increase awareness at all levels about the need for drinking
water protection. Better integration of existing Acts, including the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SWDA) and the CWA, and other source water protection efforts will aid in
streamlining and coordinating watershed protection activities and make them more
effective. Developing a range of incentives targeted at different stakeholders will further
enhance efforts to protect source water.
One of the key recommendations from the group on source water protection was to
"develop and implement education approaches targeted to motivate behavior change related to
drinking water source protection for targeted populations." While government may carry
the initial responsibility for developing and funding educational programs, to varying
degrees, all stakeholders share some responsibility for education. Specific
recommendations to promote source water protection through education are detailed
in the previous section or Education and Outreach.
Other key recommendations relative to source water protection included:
Federal and State Agencies
46) In establishing TMDLs and waste load allocations, EPA and the states should
incorporate source water assessment data and should ensure protection of current
and future sources of drinking water.
Congress
47) Agencies and organizations that are involved in drinking water source assessment
and protection and water quality and watershed restoration and protection should
talk to each other and find ways their programs and efforts compliment one another
or may be modified and expanded to compliment one another. If laws are passed to
force such an exchange (this has been the case in some locations, especially those
that cross national boundaries), a mechanism to facilitate this exchange must also be
provided.
48) Utilize tax incentives for landowners to protect public drinking water source areas
(e.g., land trusts, inheritance tax, etc.)
21 K:
-------
States
49) In setting or revising standards for surface waters, states should incorporate source
water assessment data and ensure that their water quality standards and criteria will
protect current and future sources of drinking water.
50) Encourage water suppliers to get involved and protect and conserve drinking water
source areas.
Watershed Groups
51) Promote the notion that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (i.e.,
preserve or restore a drinking water source area and avoid future water treatment
costs)
Local Government
52) Educate local people on the value of various zoning tools and allow flexibility as
appropriate, (e.g., cluster development, transfer of development rights, large lot
developments, overlay districts, etc.).
22
-------
G. Instream Flows
Instream flows are a critical priority throughout the United States. Instream flow
protection to maintain or restore water quality is not just linked to water quality issues,
but is also associated with channel maintenance, water resources management and
sustainability, aquatic species protection, recreation, aesthetics, navigation, and
socioeconomic benefits. However, instream flow is not considered equal to other types
of water uses. Legal and other limitations vary from state to state, and there is no
explicit federal mechanism to address instream flows. The Instream Flow Discussion
Group suggested giving instream flows legal standing across the country.
The key recommendations relative to instream flows included:
Federal Agencies and Congress
53) Congress or the federal government should provide adequate funding to states,
tribes, and watershed organizations to accomplish review and analysis of flow
protection laws, and the development of mechanisms to enforce effective
implementation of the laws for water bodies subject to state control and other
waters of interest.
54) EPA, U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), DOT, USGS, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, USDA, NOAA,
Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the CEQ and
all other federal agencies and organizations that have oversight of or use water
should form an inter-governrnental group or caucus to provide assistance to state,
tribal, local government, and private watershed interests for protecting instream
flows and insuring that the federal government has abided by existing laws and
regulations associated with instream flow protection.
Federal, Tribal, State and Local Governments
55) Federal, tribal, state, and local agencies should conduct a review and analysis of
implementation and application of existing federal, tribal, state, local, and
international instream flow protection laws, regulations and policies to identify
inconsistencies and gaps. The federal government should play a leadership role
and set an example by initiating this review and analysis, and developing and
implementing a plan with a timetable and resources to address and correct gaps
and inconsistencies. The results of these analyses should be used to develop and
implement mechanisms to enforce effective implementation of existing laws,
regulations, and policies. If needed, new legal, extra-legal or regulatory
mechanisms should be developed and executed to fill the gaps and correct
inconsistencies.
23 «
-------
56) Correct fragmented instream flow protection approaches by enabling the
development of holistic watershed plans by:
Empowering watershed councils with federal, tribal, state, local, private or
corporate funding and legislation.
Authorizing agency developed, multi-issue plans working with other federal
agencies, tribal entities, states and other stakeholders as necessary.
Honoring the credibility of grass roots organizations and including them in
larger scale efforts.
Plans should include:
Multidisciplinary science-based assessment and planning.
Objectives to prevent or minimize degradation of instream flows in addition to
focusing on flow restoration.
Objectives to quantify and protect dynamic flow regimes that are in equilibrium
with channel geomorphology.
Accessibility of information and development of a toolbox to protect adequate
instream flows, address water resource management and related land use issues.
Sufficient funding to quantify, acquire, protect, monitor, and enforce instream
flow regimes and lake volumes.
Identification of and development of coalitions among agencies, watershed
groups, professional organizations, and nongovernmental organizations and
other watershed stakeholders who share the objective of protecting instream
flows.
57) Develop, on a regional basis, a mechanism to improve public, private and, government
understanding of the relationships between land use, water use, flow and ecosystem
function and health by:
Creating an outreach strategy.
Identifying sources of funding for education.
Maximizing use of existing tools.
Defining the target audiences and associated message formats.
Developing an incentive-based program to award water conservation and
environmental efficiency.
States
58) All states should include flow criteria that protect biological resources in their water
quality standards. In order to encourage such action, regional conferences should be
held on instream flow protection, science and policy.
Watershed Groups
59) Watershed groups with an interest in instream flow protection should participate in
the assessment of existing instream flow protection laws, regulations and policies to
identify inconsistencies and gaps.
24'
-------
60) Watershed organizations should support implementation of mechanisms developed to
enforce effective implementation of existing laws, regulations, and policies crafted to
manage water flow.
61) Promote instream flow protection values and education to the Western Governors
Association, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Interstate Water
Council, Western States Water Council, Interstate Council on Water Policy,
Association of Western State Water Engineers, and traditional conservation
nongovernmental organizations.
25 K
-------
SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS - "
. -;;-" ; ^^-~^jg»^j*iiuhiii
-------
.:
I
ionl;inOT
Diversify partnerships in collection to include agriculture and business.
Provide incentives for schools, looking for support, to become involved in
processes to improve citizen monitoring.
63) Clearly define the purpose(s) of data collection and monitoring, and correlate
them with decision making systems. Consider a spectrum of purposes from
awareness to support for legal actions with each point along the spectrum
correlating with different data collection and monitoring approaches.
Research Community
64) Pursue an agenda that addresses research needs at multiple levels: data
consolidation, applied and basic research.
65) Universities and colleges should assist volunteers with data collection and
monitoring.
a 27
-------
T" 11 r mi i IIMII i r
SUMMARY^OFKEIRECQMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS
Watershed Planning and Evaluation
. « «« Wf \
I. Watershed Planning and Evaluation
A key theme in the discussions about watershed planning and evaluation was that if
planning is to be effective, it is imperative that plans are linked and coordinated on all
levels - local, state, tribal and federal both within agencies and organizations and
across jurisdictions. Participants felt strongly that planning needs to begin at the local
level and involve a diverse set of stakeholders, but that federal agencies and officials and
Congress should support local level planning efforts by providing funding, technical
assistance and guidance. Additional assistance should be provided by enacting enabling
watershed oriented legislation and regulations.
The key recommendations relative to watershed planning and evaluation included:
Federal Agencies
66) USDA, EPA and DOI should provide a government coordinator as a point of
contact for watershed issues (like the River Navigators provided to local
communities for the American Heritage Rivers initiative).
67) Federal agencies should coordinate their efforts with state and local agencies to
achieve consistent plans, standards and regulations. A structure should be
established to ensure this happens. The Water Resource Planning Act of the
1980s helped to link plans through river basin compacts (interstate compacts
between state and federal government). If used, this model would need to be
reevaluated to encompass water quality in addition to quantity. Coordinated
Resource Management is another example that is currently working well in
California to coordinate plans on different levels. The National Estuary Program
(NEP) is yet another model. The best characteristics should be taken from these
three models and applied on a national scope. Delegates noted that the model
used must clearly state which elements are mandatory and which are voluntary. It
is essential that efforts to coordinate plans do not stifle local efforts; flexibility
must be preserved.
68) EPA should work with Regional Roundtables to collect and disseminate existing,
successful planning and evaluation models from universities, NEP, Cooperative
Extension, NEMO oceanographic data server, Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), Watershed Restoration Action Strategy Model, California Water
Resources Planning Act, etc.
69) Using existing, successful models, EPA and/or the Regional Roundtables should
conduct trainings/workshops on evaluation. A pilot course could be taught in FY
2003. Members of the Watershed Planning and Evaluation Discussion Group L-2
from the Forum request that pilot courses be taught in their local areas so that
they can provide feedback.
28 K
-------
.Yi-t*^''._
:" '".I ^4:fe;'* i'-'^-^'-V'.i'-*
SUMMARY OF KEY=REG0W1MENDATIONS AND FINDINGS
70) The federal government should expand the use of the Brownfields Program for
contaminated watersheds, expand the use of AmeriCorps Volunteers in watershed
planning and continue to contribute to the Center for Watershed Protection and
Watershed Assistance Grants.
States
71) State watershed coordinators should be appointed and funded jointly by federal
agencies, states and local jurisdictions. These coordinators would be responsible
for: a) developing state guidelines for watershed plan framework; b) identifying
resources and disseminating data; c) helping to prioritize problems and resources
at the state level; d) making policy recommendations; and, e) providing
coordination. There should be a close connection to the Total Maximum Daily
Load process where possible.
Regional Watershed Roundtab/es
72) Regional Watershed Roundtables should distribute successful models for
watershed planning and evaluation to their local watershed organization members
for comment. Based on evaluation of models and comments from local watershed
efforts, a preferred model should be recommended for use, or a new model
should be developed using the best elements from existing models. This could be
done either at the regional level or nationally.
73) Regional Watershed Roundtables should put together an inventory of agency
people by the date of their next meeting and report back to local watershed
coordinators with a user's guide.
Foundations
74) Recognize that change in watersheds can take time and that evaluation will be
incremental. Evaluation should take place in the short term and more precise
metrics (water quality parameters) should be included in longer-term evaluation.
Watershed groups ask funders to reflect this in their funding cycles.
29 =
-------
J, Smart Growth
a;r^rr*~iii'-i,iir, .niiri iiliilili ill1 if -n
J. Smart Growth
The Smart Growth Discussion Group included many diverse viewpoints that resulted in
some contradictory recommendations. However, there was a consistent theme in the
discussion about the importance of linking growth and water quality. Among the
challenges facing smart growth initiatives are: the fact that smart growth tools and
innovative techniques are available, but not widely known across the country; there is
tremendous diversity in how growth and development are handled across the country
(this can be an opportunity as well); and, it is hard for the average person to "stand up"
to sprawl.
In general, the delegates focused on the need to: raise the awareness/availability of
existing smart growth tools, identify gaps, and work to fill those gaps; promote
economic incentives for smart growth; and, promote decision making that integrates
economic, environmental and social concerns through watershed efforts.
The key recommendations relative to smart growth included:
Federal Agencies and Congress
75) EPA should make tools and training concerning smart growth more widely
available to the watershed community. These tools need to assist in integrating
smart growth and watershed planning and implementation. Specifically,
development of web pages and links to existing pages of smart growth tools would
be useful.
76) Federal agencies should assist in educating the public about the value of
conservation easements and the economic and water quality benefits of these
easements.
National Association of Counties (NACO)
77) NACO should work with EPA to make tools and training concerning smart
growth more widely available to public officials and the watershed community. A
compendium of tools should include: 3-D visual tools, models for conducting cost
benefit analysis of smart growth techniques, success stories, and a presentation
that could be used by local officials. A handbook for local officials on natural
resource valuation, highlighting trade-offs should be developed.
States and Local Governments
78) Make sure that watershed goals are considered in visioning processes and in
growth management plans overall.
30'
-------
^: .~~j?^^-*±
Si^TO^suM^^
79) Clarify data and level of detail needed to support smart growth decisions. Utilize
and monitor benchmarks/baseline and community demographics. Use and/or
develop predictive models that help decision makers see more clearly the long-
term and secondary consequences of development on land and water resources.
Consider trends and "what ifs". For example, "if you develop 30% of the
watershed, you can expect these types of loadings and this kind of impact of water
quality". Make use of integrated multi-scale information systems.
80) Promote economic incentives for smart growth through the following methods:
Update codes to accommodate smart growth. If clustering regulations are
written appropriately, the incentive is built in because the developer makes
more per acre.
Streamline the permitting and approval process for smart growth projects.
Use Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), storm water fees, and
rainwater recapture credit to encourage smart growth.
Put a dollar value on a clean stream, a functioning wetland, etc.
Encourage the use of private conservation easements as a mechanism for
watershed protection.
81) Ensure an appropriate role for the general public to participate in decision making
processes regarding land use decisions and protected lands. Utilize processes that
are open, inclusive, coordinated, political, participatory, and engaging. Develop a
flow-chart of the decision making process, including how and when scientific,
ecological and socioeconomic data and decisions are incorporated.
82) Include flood potential in all local zoning ordinances and permitting procedures.
83) Determine logical connections between transportation planning and smart growth.
Watershed Groups
84) Take a critical look at the relationship of sprawl to problems in watersheds.
Answer the question: "if we control sprawl, is our watershed healthy?"
85) Encourage the use of private conservation easements as a mechanism for
watershed protection.
Private Sector and Non-governmenta/ Organizations
86) The Association of Homebuilders, the American Planning Association, the Center
for Watershed Protection, the Urban Land Institute, state transportation
associations and large organizations such as KMART, etc. should work with EPA to
make tools and training concerning smart growth more widely available to public
officials and the watershed community. These tools need to assist in integrating
smart growth and watershed planning and implementation.
31 me
-------
K. Habitat
: =?J~~ ^^'TSb^NDiNes^"
.,.,,.
K. Habitat
While many techniques exist to protect and/or restore habitats, the Habitat Discussion
Group focused on three primary factors that prevent or hinder habitat protection as
part of ecosystem management: regulatory and institutional barriers; lack of information;
and, understanding and communication. Delegates emphasized the need to remove
regulatory and institutional barriers (e.g. conflicting statutes) by providing training in
ecosystem management, revising policies to remove barriers, and providing incentives
for restoration. The Discussion Group felt that use of a common set of habitat
indicators at the watershed, state, regional and national level would be useful, provided
they incorporate and characterize the full range of natural conditions for the region or
locality. This would enable stakeholders at all levels to measure, assess and share
information to understand habitat ecosystem functions. Finally, group members
stressed the need to be proactive in identifying and protecting existing habitat functions
first, while understanding that 'after-the-fact' restoration is not the sole solution to
ecosystem management. People should be educated about the cost incentives for
maintaining existing functions.
The key recommendations relative to habitat included:
Federal, Tribal, and State Government
87) Provide training in ecosystem management principles for regulators and natural
resource managers to provide skills in determining management objectives, habitat
evaluation and other related tools so that increased understanding can lead to
better decision making and less emphasis on single-species management.
88) Commission a study convened by an objective, non-federal entity to review
existing laws and regulations that deal with habitat and evaluate where conflicts
exist. The study should include input by those charged with administering and
implementing projects at the regional, state and local levels. Next,
recommendations should be developed for amending statutes to solve existing
conflicts and conflicting purposes in statutes.
89) Design a national database template - with public input by user groups - of habitat
monitoring methods in use by federal, tribal, state and local governments and
private organizations. The federal government natural resource management
agencies should initiate this with the EPA or the National Water Quality
Assessment under the USGS as the lead, along with private entity partners
engaged in monitoring habitats.
90) Form a task force to create a national repository of information which is scale
dependent (states have a large repository), among DOI, USDA, EPA, NOAA, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and DOT, etc.
-------
if ^SUMMARY OFlEf
FINDINGS
91) Model the effort to develop habitat indicators after the current efforts to measure
and report on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management led by the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests.
92) Conduct broad scale ecosystem assessments with the goal of identifying and
protecting existing habitat functions that fall within the range of natural conditions
for a specified landscape. Create a study to catalog and characterize cost savings
of habitat protection (e.g. less costs to repair flood damages).
93) Missions, jurisdictions and regional boundaries for agencies should be modified to
match ecological boundaries (e.g., Bailey's ecoregions), which may also cross
watershed boundaries.
94) State, federal and tribal governments that administer the CWA should include
riparian plant, animal habitats and physical conditions of stream channels as
important components of water quality.
95) Provide financial and other incentives for people to protect habitats (e.g. the new
Farm Bill, and local, state and federal tax incentives).
Congress
96) Within a one to three year timeframe, Congress and EPA should revise the
CWA to require integration of physical habitat health into state standards under
Section 305(b) and states should work to comply with revised standards for
measuring and reporting habitat conditions. EPA will need to regain authority to
enforce habitat protection by modification to the CWA (e.g. to avoid the ruling
under the National Wildlands V. Browner case). Allocate funds to EPA's Office
of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds to develop guidance and to provide
dollars to the states for training and implementation.
Watershed Groups
97) Develop criteria and indicators to provide for a common language to measure
habitat and ecosystem functions, which incorporate the natural range of
conditions for the region and locality.
98) Develop partnerships with other groups, such as anglers, birders, commercial
fishermen, hunters and other habitat conservation organizations to expand public
interest in habitat (e.g. by offering regular field trips for the public and promoting
general hands-on involvement in watershed issues through programs such as
'Adopt-A-Stream').
33 IE
-------
SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS -" ^^=^^^^.'^:: ; ,
.itlZ-i-.mi r!T!!^^i"jii'i' ,»»IIIBHII65SE'SiKE,'hfflilSilllSiilimm ! P'!!" ' """i "T'^VIIlH^ ""!'!'!"",," " '"I''|H"I . ! . ," "--'- -,'""',,1,,!', '"'.,, !';" UBSBSS''-""""""' '5 i,,!Iiliih!i,| "/ "..!i.m,Si'!r'j'Jn"ni "ilii1, '! »!' r3J5Biiiiii,ii,,1 :i -'' u "
life.. !l|i|is|iS5'
K. Habitat
99) Storage and dissemination of information locally should be achieved through
existing regional repositories (e.g. the eastern Coal Region Repository at Canaan
Valley Institute).
100) Recognize how habitats are linked to quality of life by linking effects of lack of
protection or management planning (e.g. increased flooding due to wetlands loss)
to decrease in life quality.
101) Promote and encourage restoration that utilizes native species and communities
and identifies and focuses efforts to control invasive species.
102) Promote team problem solving in order to reduce the dangers of leaping to the
identification of solutions that, for some restoration projects, may not always
address the true causes of the problems or may not incorporate the ecological
needs of the broader landscape.
103) Define restoration needs on a watershed or sub-watershed level to promote
effective implementation and reduce overall costs in order to hasten
implementation of specific projects. At the same time, ensure that the scale of
the project addresses the needs of the ecosystem and its dependent species as
well as the impacts to the resource. For example, if the scope of area to be
addressed is too small, normal ecosystem disturbance processes and ecological
patterns may be missed.
34-
-------
L. Endangered Species
The Endangered Species Discussion Group acknowledged numerous challenges to
protecting endangered species. Often, endangered species protection is seen as a
barrier to individual rights, property rights, and economic gain. Therefore, it is essential
that protection includes effective incentives and addresses obstacles to species
protection, management, and restoration. Because federal, state and local authorities
and funding mechanisms are not easily integrated across programs, it is difficult to use
funds effectively and efficiently to accomplish cross-programmatic restoration and
protection on a watershed basis. In addition, there is a need to make the ESA more
effective to address concerns about several aspects of how species are listed, timing of
listings, and challenges with ESA implementation. Biological Opinions are often
incomplete because of limitations in the data and the analysis of the data. It is also
difficult to balance the use of resources with the goal of achieving sustainability.
In general, protection of threatened and endangered species needs to be made more
proactive and integrated in the management and protection of species habitats and
ecosystems and involve multiple stakeholders by:
Integrating and leveraging ESA related inventory, assessment, monitoring, and
planning into appropriate, comprehensive, watershed-wide assessments and/or
evaluations of overall ecosystem functionality. This should happen around the
country on a regional or local ecosystem/landscape basis.
Emphasizing the "non-hammer" sections of the ESA.
Encouraging and empowering locally led proactive planning on a regional or
watershed level focusing on species conservation.
The key recommendations relative to endangered species included:
Federal and State Agencies
104) Concerted efforts should be undertaken to be proactive in species conservation
by, for example: using the Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP)
process to focus on species conservation; training federal employees on the
proactive parts of the ESA; modifying best practices to include proactive
elements, and conducting and publicizing case studies that demonstrate effective
proactive approaches.
igljiBi L.I ;-i;:<--"iaaa \'S JJ
-------
105) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service and
other appropriate agencies should modify the existing process for developing
Biological Assessments and developing and implementing Biological Opinions on
national, regional, and local levels by:
Ensuring that Biological Assessments include information derived from local
expertise and experience based culture and traditional knowledge in addition
to scientific data, and include long-term and cumulative effects in so much as
they can be reasonably determined both spatially and temporally.
Modifying the Biological Opinion process to include public input and an
appeal process when agencies or the public feel the unsupported conclusions
have been included in the Biological Opinion.
Including peer review of scientific data when there are differences in
interpretation of scientific data used in decision making.
Instituting requirements that Biological Opinions include binding
commitments for follow-up monitoring and subsequent adjustments and
corrective actions.
Conducting comprehensive Biological Assessments leading to Biological
Opinions independent of limiting political and economic influences.
106) Develop statewide conservation plans and implement multi-state ecosystem
planning such as that done in the Southern Appalachians, Great Basin, Colorado,
etc.
107) Develop guidelines to ensure that actions are taken with adequate, but possibly
incomplete information. Develop educational materials to convey the limits of
interpretation of scientific data as a basis for decision making.
36-n
-------
M. Jurisdiction and Coordination
The Jurisdiction and Coordination Discussion Group emphasized the need for federal,
tribal, state and local agencies to support flexible and inclusive mechanisms for locally
led watershed planning and management programs. Facilitating and encouraging
government agencies, private and nongovernmental organizations, and the public to
work collaborative!/ within and across political boundaries in a watershed would help to
accomplish this effort. There is a need to educate the public about the need and value
of regulatory changes to facilitate collaboration. The discussion around permitting
emphasized the need for increased efficiency of the permitting process. In addition,
state and local governments must respect the uniqueness and independence of local
watershed groups composed of those who live, work and play in the watershed.
The key recommendations relative to jurisdiction and coordination included:
Federal, Tribal and State Governments
108) Reorganize federal and regional watershed coordination teams along state
boundaries instead of federal and regional boundaries.
109) Identify and remove barriers to interagency coordination.
I 10) Promote cross-jurisdictional collaboration by:
Changing laws, policies, and procedures that are barriers to collaboration.
Identifying and disseminating successful techniques for collaboration already
in use.
Interpreting water resource policy and regulations in a manner that balances
the need for consistency and certainty with the need for responsiveness and
flexibility.
Supporting policy dialogues for urban and rural communities to jointly discuss
how to protect watersheds.
Ill) Federal natural resource agencies and tribes should work collaboratively to
develop a process to achieve coordination through inter-regional and
interagency teams to address ecosystem problems that extend beyond
ecosystem boundaries and agency jurisdictions. The Tribal Watershed Forum is
one way to begin this process, which should also be extended to the local and
regional level.
112) Provide "one-stop-permit shopping" to remove regulatory disincentives to
habitat protection and restoration projects, by developing a clearinghouse for
permit processing while avoiding a one-size-fits all approach. This is not
designed to result in fewer permits, but rather in a central coordination body
where permits can be sent and reviewed efficiently. This has been done in
several regions among federal agencies for certain projects but this approach
should be institutionalized.
iggjETPi,:^
-------
SUMMARYjLK^RECQMIVlE|IDATIOI\!S AND F
M. Jurisdiction and Coordination
113) Seek programmatic approvals to provide regulatory relief for restoration.
114) Establish interagency/inter-jurisdictional technical review teams to assist in early
project design to streamline approval.
115) Establish mechanisms such as pilot projects and adaptive management areas for
creative solutions.
116) Reaffirm tribal policies (all federal agencies) and create a training curriculum for
interaction with tribes and disseminate to all federal agencies.
Local Government
117) Protect and preserve landowner's rights after they sell, buffer or develop land
rights. Landowners fear that that if they sell the riparian corridor it will result in
recreational users lobbying because the sight of logging, farming or other
agricultural practices offends them. They also fear voluntary programs becoming
mandatory.
118) Promote the development of watershed advisory committees where such groups
do not already exist.
119) Provide resources at the local level to support cooperation and "navigation"
through the bureaucracy.
Watershed Groups
120) Highlight the role of private landowners as legitimate and valued decision makers
in watershed planning and implementation. Specific suggestions for action items
focused on:
Providing incentives to landowners to encourage conservation management
practices that have public benefit (and asking them about incentives because
they are the best people to identify which incentives would work for them).
Rewarding good land stewards, through programs such as the Chesapeake
Bay Clean Bay award for farmers.
Increasing communication with landowner groups to explain and educate
them about benefits of good landowner stewardship, find out their concerns
and encourage them to participate in watershed planning.
121) Create opportunities to encourage landowner stewardship through the
permitting process. Specific action items included:
Develop incentives.
Provide technical assistance.
Provide exemptions from permitting fees.
Develop procedures to limit liability.
Develop public education tools on regulatory requirements.
' "--" ! ' '' '-1'"""" ""-! -« 38 -^-,-- v-.. - .-,...- - - =
-------
N. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
The TMDL Discussion Group made a point of recognizing that major progress has been
made toward improving water quality through the implementation of TMDLs under the
CWA in the last decade, particularly through the reduction of point source discharges.
However, major challenges still exist from predominately nonpoint sources. As such,
the methods for continued progress would need to be tailored toward nonpoint source
sector audiences, such as farmers, ranchers and entities responsible for urban runoff.
The focus should be on developing priority strategies for achieving continued success
and clear improvement in implementation and regulation of TMDL's. A major challenge
is the inconsistent interpretation and implementation of TMDL's among the states (and
regions and federal agencies to a lesser degree), included issues associated with
inconsistent standard setting, regulation interpretation and implementation, and listing of
impaired water bodies. There are also inconsistencies within the states associated with
the lack of integration between water quality standard setting, and TMDL's. The
Discussion Group identified the effort to develop EPA's "Draft 2002 Consolidated Listing
Guidance" as a unique near-term opportunity that would potentially have long-term and
far-reaching impacts on improved consistency among the states. The Discussion Group
explicitly recommended that EPA work with stakeholders to develop the "Draft 2002
Consolidated Listing Guidance" to improve the process of listing impaired water-bodies.
Another important theme among the recommendations the group identified was the
need for a watershed approach to the implementation of TMDL's. TMDLS are widely
being implemented in ways that are counter-productive to watershed management.
Also a re-occurring theme was the need for more proactive alternatives to TMDL's for
addressing impaired water quality (e.g., through development of watershed management
strategies, best management practices, tools and requirements for improving our waters
BEFORE they are added to the 303(d) list and require that a TMDL be developed).
The key recommendations relative to TMDLs included:
Federal Agencies and Congress
122) Develop criteria, protocols and methodologies to create a consistent/compatible
scientific approach to listing and de-listing among states. Develop consensus
around criteria for prioritizing water bodies to include on national 303(d) lists.
123) Establish minimum levels of information needed to list and de-list impaired
water- bodies. Include explicit plans for obtaining data for watersheds without
sufficient information.
124) Develop agreements and methods to deliver a unified (one source) message to
the public, grass roots watershed groups, and landowners regarding TMDLs.
39 K
-------
I N. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
I
" ' -frt *9
States
125) Incorporate the TMDL development and implementation processes with overall
watershed management approaches, farm plans, monitoring and other state-led
activities. Coordinate watershed management activities using a rotating
watershed approach and emphasize adaptive management approaches and
require agencies to actively seek local stakeholder input early and often in the
TMDL development and implementation process.
126) Focus on strategically addressing water quality problems and provide early
warning systems to identify water bodies that are deteriorating so that
preventative actions can be taken prior to listing.
127) Consider Third Party TMDL's as an innovative alternative to help address the
backlog of TMDL's required and decrease potential for lawsuits. Promote third
party TMDL development through flexible funding mechanisms.
128) Strengthen water quality standards to help improve the TMDL process.
Watershed Groups
129) Foster collaborative partnership approaches from the outset of TMDL
development to improve the outcome, (e.g., implement collaborative team
approaches by federal, state, and local agencies that coordinate TMDL
development and implementation).
130) When communicating to the general public, articulate information about TMDLs
in terms of "clean water". Many people are confused about TMDLs, their
purpose and their role in restoring impaired waters. The public, however,
understands "clean water."
131) Provide a clearinghouse and communications network for stakeholders
interested in information relevant to TMDL development and implementation.
40
-------
NATIONAL
FORUM
Bwltliw Partnerships far Heutiliy Watersktils
APPENDICES
-------
-------
ACRONYMS
AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Science
AML - Abandoned Mine Land
APA - American Planning Association
ARC - Appalachian Regional Commission
BLM - U.S. Bureau of Land Management
CARA - Conservation and Reinvestment Act
CDBG - Community Development Block Grants
CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality
CNS - Corporation for National Service
CWA - Clean Water Act
CRMP - Coordinated Resource Management Plan
DOD - U.S. Department of Defense
DOE - U.S. Department of Energy
DOI - U.S. Department of the Interior
DOT - U.S. Department of Transportation
EDA - Economic Development Administration
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute
FACA - Federal Advisory Committee Act
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Act
FTE Full-time employee
FWS - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HUD - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
IFIM - Instream Flow Incremental Methodology
IJC - International Joint Commission
IPM - Integrated Pest Management
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NACO - National Association of Counties
NAS - National Academy of Sciences
NEMO - Non-Point Education for Municipal Officials
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
NEP - National Estuary Program
NGA - National Governor's Association
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NOAA - National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
NOI - Notice of Intent
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NAWQA - National Water-Quality Assessment Program
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
OSM - U.S. Office of Surface Mining
.A-l
-------
APPENDICES
PHABSIM - Physical HABitat SIMulation
QA Quality Assurance
QC - Quality Control
RC&D - Resource Conservation and Development Council
RFP Request for Proposals
RLF - Revolving Loan Fund
SCWD - Soil Conservation and Water Districts
SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act
SPARROW - SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes
(USGS)
STORET - Short for STOrage and RETrieval. A repository for water quality,
biological, and physical data and is used by state environmental
agencies, EPA and other federal agencies, universities, private citizens,
etc.
TDR - Transferable Development Rights
TEA-21 - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
UDAG - Urban Development Action Grants
USDA - U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS - U.S. Forest Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WAG Watershed Assistance Grants
WIN - Watershed Information Network
WQS - Water Quality Standards
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
A-2'
-------
FORUM DELEGATE LIST
Kamran Abdollahi
Deborah Alexander
Clarence Alexander
Vickie Allin
Marc Alston
Laurel Ames
Sparky Anderson
Mary Apostolico
Terry Ash
Eric Autenreith
Marc Aveni
Robert Backmah
Lisa Bacon
Richard Badics
Attila Bality
James Balmer
Fred Bank
Dennis Barnett
Lynn Barris
Samuel Bartlett
David Beck
Frank Becker
Mark Becker
Daniel Beley
Thomas Benzing
Mark Beorkrem
Allison Berland
Tina Bernd-Cohen
Matt Berres
Jim Blankenship
Alicia Blascoe
Fred Block
Hannibal Bolton
Janet Bonet
Gretchen Bonfert
Steve Borchard
Bill Bosworth
Dennis Bowker
Jim Boynton
Tim Bozorth
Beverly Braverman
David Brickley
Phillip Brooks
Jody Brown
Carre Brown
Southern University
Bill Pascrell, Jr., Member of Congress 8th District,
New jersey
Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sierra Nevada Alliance
Clean Water Action
Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation
City of Bainbridge Island
Plateau Action Network
Virginia Cooperative Extension, Prince William County
Unit
River Keepers
CH2M HILL
Washtenaw County Deis/Eh
National Park Service
City of Vandalia
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
Cherokee Watershed Group
Town of Guilford
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
Missouri Corn Growers Association
Bergenswan
Colorado Water Quality Control Division
Shenandoah Valley Water Forum
Mississippi River Basin Alliance
Consensus Building Institute
Blackfoot Challenge
The Potomac Conservancy
North Fork River Improvement Association
Winnebago County Health Department
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Spring Lake Park Groundwater Guardians
The McKnight Foundation
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Ohio Mining Association
Sacramento River Watershed Program
Sierra National Forest
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Mountain Watershed Association
Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation
U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental
Enforcement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Endangered Species
Mendocino County Farm Bureau
kamrana664@cs.com
deborah.alexander@mail.house.gov
yritwc@alaskalife.net
vickie.allin@noaa.gov
alston.marc@epa.gov
sierran@sierra.net
sparky@cleanwater.org
tmash@seanet.com
eric@cwv.net
maveni@vt.edu, mavenie@wcgov.org
rkeepers@i29.net
Ibacon@ch2m.com
badicsr@co.washtenaw.mi.us
Attila_Bality@nps.gov
jbalmer@usmo.com
fred.bank@fhwa.dot.gov
dennis.w.barnett@usace.army.mil
lbarris@lbarris.com
bartletts@ci.guilford.ct.us
david.beck@ia.usda.gov
febeck@hotmail.com
bergenswan@sprynet.com
daniel.beley@state.co.us
pw2000@jmu.edu
mbeorkrem@hotmail.com
aberland@cbuilding.org
blkfootchallenge@aol.com
berres@potomac.org
jblank@gj.net
ablascoe@wchd.org
fblock@osmre.gov
Hannibal Bolton@fws.gov
janbonet@neonramp.com
gbonfert@mcknight.org
steven_j_borchard@blm.gov
wcbosworth@aep.com
dennisbowker@volcano.net
jboynton@fs.fed.us
tbozorth@mt.blm.gov
bevb@helicon.net
dgbri ckl ey@dcr.state.va.us
phillip.brooks@usdoj.gov
Jody_Brown@fws.gov
mendofb@pacific.net
B-l
-------
APPENDICES
B. Forum Delegate List
Janice Brown
Ken Brunswick
Jennifer Brunty
Rick Buckley
Loring Bullard
jane Bullock
Katherine Bunting-Howarth
Faith Burns
Linda Bystrak
Carol Campbell
Matt Campbell
Steve Carmichael
Trish Carroll
Robert Carter
George R. Carter
Rosemary Cecil
Robin Chanay
Charles Chapman
Kathryn Chapman
Tom Christensen
Del Christensen
Jenifer Christman
Damion Ciotti
David Clawson
Diane Coe
Lee Colten
Allan Comp
Richard Coombe
Max Copenhagen
Patrick Corleto
Elizabeth Corr
Bea Covington
Bill Cox
Buff Crosby
Douglas Crow
Shannon Cunniff
William Cunningham
Tony Curtis
Elena Daly
Geoff Dates
Pam Davee
Margaret Davidson
Marquietta Davis
Martha Davis
Michelle Dawson Powell
Melissa DeSantis
Ann Devine
Benjamin Diewold
S. Luanne Diffin
Roger Dilts
Douglas Dobyns
Federal Highway Administration, Montana Division
Office
Limberlost Wetland Coordinator
Highlands County SWCD
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
Watershed Committee of the Ozarks
Duke University
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
National Cattlemens Beef Association
Big Bluestem Audubon Society
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Forest Service
Heizer/Manila Watershed Organization, Inc.
Greene County Watershed Alliance
U.S. Geological Survey
River Network
Fishing Creek Watershed Association
Fishing Creek Watershed Association
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
Trees Forever
International Paper
Dark Shade Brownfields Project
American Association of State Highway &
Transportation Officials
Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District
Kentucky Division of Water
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
Watershed Agricultural Council
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
CH2M HILL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Missouri Coalition for the Environment
Virginia Tech
Tennessee Valley Authority Resource Stewardship
Mosier Watershed Council
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
Swaner Nature Preserve
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
River Network
Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Des Moines County
Rogers Water Utilities
Hawaii County
Evergreen Land Trust, River Farm Community
janice.brown@fhwa.dot.gov
klbrunswick@jayco.net
jbrunty@hotmail.com
Rbuckley@osmre.gov
loring@watershedcommittee.org
janebullock@earthlink.net
khowarth@state.de.us
fburns@beef.org
pbystrak@pcpartner.net
campbell.carol@epa.gov
matt.campbell@fema.gov
carmichael.steve@epa.gov
Tcarroll@fs.fed.us
muddlersint@aol.com
minevir@pulsenet.com
rcecil@usgs.gov
rchanay@rivernetwork.org
chapman@epix.net
chapman@epix.net
thomas.christenson@usda.gov
Dchristnsn@treesforever.org
jenifer.christman@ipaper.com
centralcitybp@hotmail.com
davidc@aashto.org
dcoe@midusa.net
lee.colten@mail.state.ky.us
tcomp@osmre.gov
riccoombe@catskill.net
pcorleto@ch2m.com
corr.elizabeth@epa.gov
bcovington@moenviron.org
cox@vt.edu
blcrosby@tva.gov
dcrow@pacifier.com
scunniff@usbr.gov
bill.cunningham@ca.usda.gov
tony@fundgroup.com
elena daly@wo.blm.gov
gdates@rivernetwork.org
pdavee@ucriverkeeper.org
margaret.davidson@noaa.gov
mlcmartha@aol.com
michelle dawson@blm.gov
adevine@srbc.net
diewoldb@burlington.dst.ia.us
luannediffin@rwu.org
rdilts@ilhawaii.net
dougdobyns@yahoo.com
-------
Chuck Donley
Katharine Dowell
Daniel Downing
Jason Downs
Nettie Drake
Mitch Dubensky
Thomas Dupuis
Cindy Dyballa
Angela Ehlers
Geoffrey Ekechukwu
Don Elder
Julie Elfving
Bridgette Ellis
Kathy Ellis
Larry Emerson
Gerry Emm
Aaron Engler
Janet Enquist
Caryn Ernst
Shannon Estenoz
Christopher Estes
Conner Everts
Larry Fernandez
Gregory Fetterman
Ella Filippone
Linda Fisher
Heath Fitzpatrick
Leonard Fleckenstein
Michael Focazio
Richard Fox
Tracy Fredin
Janie French
Roxa French
Abigail Friedman
Lora Friest
Charles Fritz
Liz Galli-Noble
Diane Galusha
Patricia Garrigan
Andrea Geiger
Beverley Getzen
Jay Gilbertson
Bess Gillelan
Jay Gilliam
Patricia Glass
Eric Glover
James Goeke
Carsten Goff
Rick Gold
Orton Family Foundation
Maryland Department Natural Resources
University of Missouri-Columbia, Outreach &
Extension
Hillsdale Water Quality Project
B & N Enterprises
American Forests & Paper Association
CH2M HILL
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
River Network
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Tennessee Valley Authority Resource Stewardship
U.S. Navy, CNO Environmental Protection, Safety and
Occupational Health Division
Arch Coal, Inc.
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
Meridian institute
Turtle River Watershed Association
Trust for Public Lands
World Wildlife Fund, South Florida Ecoregion
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Sport Fish
Urban Creeks Council of California
DBSP Environmental Products
Lower Platte River Corridor Alliance
Passaic River Coalition
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Friends of the Cheat
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
Trees, Water & People
Center for Global Environmental Education
Canaan Valley Institute
Bitter Root Water Forum
National Association of Counties
Upper Iowa River Watershed Project
Red River Basin Board
Governor's Upper Yellowstone Taskforce
Catskill Watershed Corporation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOAA/NOS/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
East Dakota Water Development District
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
Izaak Walton League of America, Save Our Streams
Manatee County Commission
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
University of Nebraska, Conservation and Survey
Division
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region
donleyassoc@aol.com
kdowell@dnr.state.md.us
downingD@missouri.edu
hwqp@birch.net
nrdrake@psnw.com
mitch_dubensky@afandpa.org
tdupuis@ch2m.com
cdyballa@usbr.gov
conserve@wcenet.com
geoffrey_ekechukwu@fws.gov
delder@rivernetwork.org
elfving.julie@epa.gov
bkellis@tva.gov
ellis.kathy@hq.navy.mil
lemerson@archcoal.com
gemm@powernet.net
enquist@paulbunyan.net
carynernst@earthlink.net
pandasoflo@aol.com
Christopher_Estes@fishgame.state.ak.us
connere@west.net
dagauff@dbsp.com
greg@lpsnrd.org
prch2o@aol.com, prcwater@aol.com
fisher.linda@epa.gov
foc@cheat.org
Fleckenstein.Leonard@epa.gov
mfocazio@usgs.gov
twp@treeswaterpeople.org
tfredin@gw.hamline.edu
jfcvi@uplink.net
brwaterforum@bitterroot.net
afriedma@naco.org
lora.friest@ia.usda.gov
chuckr2b2@corpcomm.net
noble@ycsi.net
galusha@cwconline.org
garrigan.trish@epa.gov
robin.bruckner@noaa.gov
beverley.b.getzen@usace.army.mil
edwdd@brookings.net
bess.gillelan@noaa.gov
strmiwla@cfw.com
pat.glass@co.manatee.fl.us
eglover@pn.usbr.gov
jgoekel@UNL.edu
cgoff@nm.bl m.gov
rgold@uc.usbr.gov
a.B-3
-------
B. Forum Delegate List
Marykate Gonzalez
Lynn Good
Davfd Gottlieb
Nancy Graybeal
Meredith Gregg
Barry Gruessner
Ben Grumbles
George Haddow
Michael Haire
William Hal!
Melissa Halsted
Alan Ham
David Hamilton
Jennifer Hammer
Nancy Hammett
Allen Hance
Louise Hanson
William Harding
Carla Hardy
Warren Harper
Richard Hatter
George S. Hawkins
Jerry L Haynes
Ken Heffner
Mike Heiligenstein
Dana Heifer
Russ Henly
Rachael Herpel
Richard Hersey
Richard Hicks
Steven Hill
Rosemarie Hinkel
Daniel Hippe
Joel Hirschhorn
Joseph E. Hoffman
Heather Holland
Joel Holtrop
Karl Honkonen
Barb Horn
Ted Howard
Renee Hoyos
Marian Hrubovcak
Suzy Hudak
Bernadette Hudnell
Mary Hufford
Robert Hughes
Sarah Humphries
Mary Pope Hutson
Holly Huyck
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica
Mountains
U.S. Forest Service
Plateau Action Network
Lake Champlain Basin Program
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IMC Global, Inc.
Kennebec Soil and Water Conservation District
Washington Farmers Union
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
The Conservation Foundation
Egeria Research
Northeast-Midwest Institute
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Watershed Protection & Partnership Council
West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency
U.S.Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Los Angeles & San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council
Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association
Mercer County Solid Waste Authority
U.S. Forest Service
Williamson County
California Coordinated Resource Management &
Planning Program
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
The Groundwater Foundation
Herring Run Watershed Association
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
NOAA/NOS/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management
U.S. Geological Survey
National Governors Association
The Berks County Conservancy
Center for Watershed Protection
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Massachusetts Watershed Initiative
Rocky Mountain Watersheds Volunteer Monitoring
Network
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
The Resources Agency of California
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
American Folklife Center
Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine
Reclamation
Rivers Council of Washington
Lowcountry Open Land Trust
Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association
mgonzale@osmre.gov
goodgw@tetratech-ffx.com
ndull@aol.com
ngraybeal@fs.fed. us
meredith@cwv.net
bgruessner@anrmail.anr.state.vt.us
Ben.Grumbles@mail.house.gov]
George_Haddow@hotmail.com
Haire.Michael@epamail.epa.gov
wlhall@imcglobal.com
melissa-halsted@me.nacdnet.org
alanham@pacifier.com
dhamil@osmre.gov
jhammer@theconservationfoundation.org
nhammett@mediaone.net
ahance@nemw.org
lhanson@dnr.state.md.us
wharding@dos.state.ny.us
cfunkhouser@wvsca.org
wharper@fs.fed.us
rick@lasgriverswatershed.org
ghawkins@thewatershed.org
mcswa@inetone.net
kheffnerO 1 @fs.fed.us
ccstein@swbell.net
cacrmp@ca.nacdnet.org
russ_henly@fire.ca.gov
rachael@groundwater.org
watershed@herringrun.org
richard.w.hicks@dep.state.fl.us
steve_hill@fws.gov
rosemarie.hinkel@noaa.gov
djhippe@usgs.gov
jhirschhorn@nga.org
joe@berks-conservancy.org
HKH@CWP.ORG '
jholtrop@fs.fed.us
karl.honkonen@state.ma.us
barb.horn@state.co.us
shopaitr6@aol.com
renee.hoyos@resources.ca.gov
mhrubovcak@dcnr.state.pa.us
bhudnell@choctaw.org
mhuf@loe.gov
epcamr@ptd.net
shumphries@riverscouncil.org
mphutson@lolt.org
hhuyck@csd.net
B-41
-------
Jerry lies
Richard Ingram
Barbara Inyan
Barbara Inyan
Eric Janes
Raymond Jay
James F. Johnson
Russ Johnson
James Johnston
Margaret Jones
Chuck Jones
Scott Jones
Harry Judd
Lawrence Kaiser
Leslie Kane
Mary Jo Kealy
Tom Kelsch
Dan Keppen
Kendal L. Keyes
Margaret King
Lyn Kirschner
Harold Klaege
Allen Klein
Suzanne Klimek
Sharon Kliwinski
Lisa Knerr
Laura Koesters
Fred Kollmann
Peter Kopcsak
Mike Koryak
Kallie Kull
William Kurey
Tarn Kutzmark
Hye Yeong Kwon
Brett Laverty
Peter Lavigne
Margaret Lawless
Larry G. Lawson
William Layher
Bill Leach
Bill Leary
Michele L. LeFaivre
Ursula Lemanski
Rick Leong
Melissa Leoni
Gene Lessard
Chris Lewicki
Michael Lilly
Allen Linkenhoker
Jo Ellen Litz
Ohio State University Extension
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
International City/ County Management Association
Nez Perce Tribe
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Heritage Conservacy
Little Tennessee Watershed Association
Save Our Rivers, Inc.
Douglas County Transportation and Land Services
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Rockdale County
Town of Guilford .
CH2M HILL
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Butte Creek Restoration
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program, Inc.
Resource Solutions/University of Alaska Anchorage
Conservation Technology Information Center
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
U.S. National Park Service
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Koesters Consulting, Inc.
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
Cumberland River Compact
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District
Fishery Network of the Central California Coastal
Counties (FishNet 4C)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Darby Creek Joint Board
Center for Watershed Protection
Vinton County Soil and Water District/Racoon Creek
Watershed
Executive Leadership Institute
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Bayou Bartholomew Alliance
University of California, Davis
Council on Environmental Quality
National Association of Home Builders
U.S. National Park Service
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
National Environmental Education and Training
Foundation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alaska Boreal Forest Council
Botetourt County
Swatara Creek Watershed Association
iles.9@osu.edu
Richard_lngram@deq.state.ms.us
byuhas@icma.org
barbarai@nezperce.org
eric_b Janes@blm.gov
rjay@rb4.swrcb.ca.gov
jim.johnson@hq02.usace.army.mil
rjohnson@heritageconservancy.org
nbumppo@dnet.net
rivers@dnet.net
cjones@co.douglas.wa.us
socky@wcenet.com
hjudd@deq.state.ut.us
larry.kaiser@rockdalecounty.org
kanel@ci.guilford.ct.us or
lmkane@snet.net
kelsch@nfwf.org
dkeppen@mp.usbr.gov
kkeyes@cbbep.org
anmjk@uaa.alaska.edu
kirschner@ctic.purdue.edu
harold.klaege@usda.gov
aklein@osmre.gov
suzanne.klimek@ncmail.net
sharon_kliwinski@nps.gov
knerrli@tetratech-ffx.com
koesters@eden.infohwy.com
fkollmann@umesc.et.usgs.gov
milles@mtrmls.com
Michael.Koryak@lrp02.usace.army.mil
kallie@iqe.org
bill_kurey@fws.gov
tam-kutzmark@oh.nacdnet.org
hyk@cwp.org
brettlaverty@hotmail.com
watershed@igc.org
margaret.lawless@fema.gov
lglawson@deq.state.va.us
layher@earthlink.net
wdleach@ucdavis.edu
William_L_Leary@ceq.eop.gov
mlefaivre@nahb.com
ursula_lemanski@nps.gov
rleong@ebmud.com
melissa.leoni@state.or.us
watershed@neetf.org
Lewicki.chris@epa.gov
mlilly@gwscientific.com
alinkenhoker@co.botetourt.va.us
"swatara@mbcomp.com
B-5
-------
Patricia H. Lodge
Stefan Lorenzato
Jeffrey Loser
Raymond Loveless
John Lowrie
Dave Lutgen
Sungnome Madrone
Elaine Major
Karen Marchant
Douglas Marcy
Julia M. Marsden
Gale Martin
Gustavo Martinez
John May
Leslee McCarty
Mark N. McCree
Dan McGuiness
Meghan McKinnon
Yancey McLeod
Jim Meek
Carolyn Mehl
Vince Meldrum
Matthew Meyers
Donna Meyers
Ellen Micoli
Howard Miller
Amy Miller
Edmund Miller
Patricia Miller
Timothy Miller
John Monahan
James M. Moore
Richard Moore
Frank Moore
James -Moore
Ann Morgan
Bruce Morton
Thomas Mosley
Jan Mueller
Mark Muller
Pat Munoz
Cis Myers
Georgette Myers
Donald D. Nelson
Michael Norris
Nat Nutongla
Carol O'Beirne
Mike Oetker
Dennis O'Grady
Becky Ohrtman
Larry Oldham
Seminole Tribe of Florida
Adopt-A-Watershed
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
Mountainland Association of Governments
CALFED Bay Delta Program
Leavenworth County
Natural Resources Services of Redwood Community
Action Agency
University of Alaska Anchorage
Idaho Cattle Association
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Charleston District
League of Women Voters
Mississippi Soil & Water Conservation Commission
Agriculture Exp Station, University of Puerto Rico
DBSP Environmental Products
Greenbrier River Watershed Association
Corps Reform, Mississippi River Basin Alliance
National Audubon Society
Jones Falls Watershed Association
Yancey Environmental Solutions
Conservation Technology Information Center
Ecosystem Management Research Institute
Earth Force
Fairfax County, Department of Public Works and
Environmental Services
City of Santa Cruz
AMD & ART, Inc. N.P.
Cheney Lake Watershed Inc.
Park Conservation District
U.S. Department of Defense
West Virginia University Extension Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Washington Department of Ecology
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Izaak Walton League of America
Howard Soil and Water Conservation District
Texas State Soil & Water Conservation Board
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
West Atlanta Watershed Alliance
Patoka South Fork
National Wildlife Federation
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
River Network
CH2M HILL
U.S. Army Environmental Center
Washington State University
U.S. Geological Survey
The Hop! Tribe
Frost Valley YMCA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
South Nation Conservation
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship
Mississippi State University
Plodge@semtribe.com
lores@dwq.swrcb.ca.gov
jeff.loser@usda.gov
rloveless@mountainland.org
lowrie@water.ca.gov
davidl@lvcoks.com
sungnorne@rcaa.org
anebg@uaa.alaska.edu
karen_ica@rmci.net
doug.c.marcy@usace.army.mil
jmars80278@aol.com
gmartin@mswcc.state.ms.us
tavomarti@hotmail.com
jmay@dbsp.com
current@inetone.net
mbeorkrem@hotmail.com
dmcguiness@audubon.org
mmckinnon@greaterhomewood.org
yesyancey@mindspring.com
jmeek@erols.com
carolyn_mehl@emri.org
vmeldrum@earthforce.org
matthew.meyers@co.fairfax.va.us
DMeyers@ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
amdart@gte.net
hydromax@ourtownusa.net
amy-miller@mt.nacdnet.org
edmund.miller@osd.mil
pmiller2@wvu.edu
tlmiller@usgs.gov
jmon46 1 @ecy .wa.gov
jmm@adem.state.al.us
RxMoore@iwla.org
crescoflm@hotmail.com
jmoore@tsswcb.state.tx.us
ann morgan@co.blm.gov
bnpeace@hotmail.com
psfwsc@sigecom.net
mueller@nwt.org
mmuller@iatp.org
pmunoz@rivernetwork.org
cmyers@ch2m.com
georgette.myers@aec.apgea.army.mil
nelsond@wsu.edu
mnorris@usgs.gov
nnutongla@hopi.nsn.us
cobeirne@frostvalley.org
mike_oetker@fws.gov
gm 1 @nation.on.ca
rohrtrnan@osmre.gov
loldham@pss.msstate.edu
B-6*
-------
Christine Olsenius
Ellen Oman
David Orr
Avery Palmer
Tyce Palmer
Marolyn Parson
Brian Parsons
Glenn Patterson
Avinash Patwardhan
Brent Paul
Marjan Peltier
Jennifer Pereira
Janet Person
Mark Petersen
Judith Petersen
Shannon Peterson
Charles Phillips
Jason Pinchback
Stanley Ponce
Barbara Poore
Ross Povenmire
Marty Prichard
Ann Puffer
Pamela Pyles
Peter Raabe
David Ramsay
Maria Rea
Alison Reber
Bill Redding
Diane Regas
Tim Reuwsaat
Rudy Rice
Sue Richardson
John Ricketts
Lee Roberts
Steve Robertson
Peyton Robertson
Andrew Robertson
Mike Robinson
Robert Rock
Carrie Rogaczewski
Alan Rosa
Gwyn Rowland
Mary Ann Rozum
Lauren Russell
Dorothy Saldanha-David
Whitty Sanford
Bernie Sarnoski
Cynthia Sarthou
Roberta Haley Savage
David Scherf
Tennessee Valley Authority and Southeast Watershed
Forum
Washington State Department of Transportation
Glen Canyon Action Network
Inside EPA
Utah Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Home Builders
American Society of Civil Engineers
U.S. Geological Survey "
CH2M HILL
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council
Antrim Conservation District
Utah Farm Bureau Federation
Kentucky Waterways Alliance
Blacklick, Environmental Education Center
Environmental Facilitation LLC
Texas Watch
U.S. Geological Survey
University of Washington, Geography Department
Northeast Utilities
Lower Paint Creek Association, Inc.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Upper Broad River Watershed Protection Program
River Network
Friends of the Chicago River
California Resources Agency
Kaw Valley Heritage Alliance
Sierra Club
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
H&R Farm, Inc.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
CH2M HILL
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley
Dixie National Forest
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration /
NOS
Federal Emergency Management Agency
City and County of Honolulu
Sheridan County Conservation District
Catskill Watershed Corporation
Izaak Walton League of America
U.S. Department of Agriculture s
Federal Emergency Management Agency
McDonough County Health Department
Connecticut River Watershed Council
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Gulf Restoration Network
ASIWPCA
Frost Valley
cholsenius@aol.com
omanl@wsdot.wa.gov
david@drainit.org
avery.palmer@iwpnews.com
tyce-palmer@ut.nacdnet.org
mparson@nahb.com
bparsons@asce.org
gpatter@usgs.gov
apatward@ch2m.com
brent.paul@fema.gov
peltier.marjan@epa.gov
jpereira@providenceplan.org
jperson 1 92@aol.com
markp@sisna.com
judy@kwalliance.org,
director@kwalliance.org
centralcitybp@hotmail.com
cphillips@cs.com
jp30@swt.edu
sponce@usgs.gov
poore@u.washington.edu
povenrm@nu.com
martylpca@email.msn.com
apuffer@fs.fed. us
lakeluretown@blueridge.net
praabe@rivernetwork.org
dramsay@chicagoriver.org
maria@resources.ca.gov
areber4369@aol.com
bill.redding@sierraclub.org
regas.diane@epa.gov
timothy reuwsaat@blm.gov
rricenacd@midamer.net
sue richardson@or.blm.gov
jrickett@ch2m.com
shopaitr6@aol.com
srrobertson@fs.fed.us
peyton.robertson@noaa.gov
andrew.robertson@noaa.gov
mike.robinson@fema.gov
rrock@co.honolulu.hi.us
carrie-rogaczewski@nacdnet.org
alrosa@cwconline.org
growland@iwla.org, grozzelle@iwla.org
mrozum@reeusda.gov
lauren.russell@fema.gov
mchd@macomb.com
crwc@crocker.com
sarnoski.bernie@epa.gov
cyn@gulfrestorationnetwork.org
r.savage@asiwpca.org
dscherf@frostvalley.org
3HJ2ZSS3K33
-------
Michael Schlegel
Robert Schneider
David Schwarz
Jim Sedell
Richard Seibel
Bob Shavelson
Ernie Shea
Robert Shedlock
John Shepard
Diana Sheridan
Jane Sherman
Lysle Sherwin
Gary Shockley
Jim Shrouds
Robert Shulman
Fraser Sime
Don Simpson
Laura Skaer
Charles Slaughter
Ethan T. Smith
Wendy Smith
Larry Smith
Kristin Smith
Joseph Smith
Russ Snyder
Karen Solar!
Sari Sommarstrom
Fred Sorensen
Michael Soukup
Elizabeth Southerland
Tiffany Speir
David Stand)
Michael Steinmaus
Ira Stern
Jim Stewart
Linda Stoll
Noni Strawn
Timothy Sullivan
Kate Sullivan
Richard Swanson
Gerald Talbert
Barry Thacker
Mark Thompson
Bridget Thorsen
Albert Todd
Joel Tohtz
Barry Tonning
Tennille Tracy
Judith Troast
Big Thompson Watershed Forum
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Buffalo Rapids
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
Cook Inlet Keeper
National Association of Conservation Districts
U.S. Geological Survey
Rivers Council of Minnesota
James River Basin Partnership
Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council
Pennsylvania State University - Center for Watershed
Stewardship
City of Oklahoma City
Federal Highway Administration
Plumas County
California Department of Water Resources
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Northwest Mining Association
American Water Resources Association
Department of the Interior, Sustainable Development
Indictors (SDI) Group
World Wildlife Fund
National Association of Conservation Districts
The Copper River Watershed Project
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Forest Service
Watershed Management Council
University of Alaska CES
U.S. National Park Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Master Home Builders Association of Pierce County
Orange County, Environment and Resource
Conservation Department
Monday Creek Restoration Project
New York City Department of Environmental
Protection
Darby Creek Watershed Joint Board
Fox-Wolf Basin 2000, Inc.
CH2M HILL
Mississippi River Basin Alliance
Rivers Council of Washington
U.S. Forest Service
National Association of Conservation Districts
Coal Creek Watershed Foundation, Inc.
ICMA's Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program
National Association of Local Government
Environmental Professionals
U.S. Forest Service
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Inside EPA
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
schlegel@cnr.colostate.edu
bschneider@californiawild.org
djs@midrivers.com
jsedell@fs.fed.us
rseibel@osmre.gov
bob@inletkeeper.org
ernie-shea@nacdnet.org
rjshedlo@usgs.gov
jshepard@gw.hamline.edu
dianasheridan@smsu.edu
jsherman@providenceplan.org
Iss9@email.psu.edu
gary.shockley@ci.okc.ok.us
james.shrouds@fhwa.dot.gov
robshulman@countyofplumas.com
simef@water.ca.gov
don_simpson@blm.gov
lskaer@nwma.org
cslaugh@uidaho.edu
etsmithusa@netscape.net
southernrivers@att.net
lcsmith@intrepid.net
crwp@copperriver.org
jbsmith@lc.usbr.gov
russel.k.snyder@mvp02.usace.army.mil
ksolari@fs.fed. us
sari@sisqtel.net, sari@watershed.org
dffes@uaa.alaska.edu
mike_soukup@nps.gov
southerland.elizabeth@epa.gov
tspeir@mbapierce.com
dstancil@co.orange.nc.us
mcrp@netpl uscom.com
Sterni@water.dep.nyc.ny.us
farm 1 065@aol.com
foxwolf@athenet.net
nstrawn@ch2m.com
timsullivan@mrba.org
rswanson@fs.fed.us
gtalbert@home.com
barryt@geoe.com
mthompson@icma.org
atodd@fs.fed.us
jet@wtp.net
tennille.tracy@iwpnews.com
jtroast@usbr.gov
B-8'
-------
John Turnbull
Michael Umbrello
David Urban
Margaret Van Deusen
German A. Vanegas
Rodney Verhoeff
Steve Via
Maria Vorel
Tricia Waggoner
Lawrence Walkoviak
Randy Wanamaker
Charles Wanner
Matt Ward
Vicki Wares
Susan Watts
Ted Way
Robert Wayland
Gary Wegner
Tom Wehri
Michael Wellborn
D. Lynne Welsh
Edward Wengryn
Joe Werning
Jason Wheatley
Robert Wheeler
Mark Wheetley
Alan White
Damon Whitehead
Boone Whitmer
Greg Wiecko
Joel Williams
Burt Williams
Louise Wise
Mark Wolf-Armstrong
Mary Ellen Wolfe
Angela Wood
Beth Woodworth
Julie Wright
Edward Wytovich
Violet Yeaton
Kaori Yoshida
Ric Zarwell
Matt Zieper
John Zoellner
Upper Big Blue Natural Resources District
Elem Indian Colony
Palouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute
Charles River Watershed Association
Niobrara Council
American Water Works Association
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Yukon River Intertribal Watershed Council
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Gateway Technologies, Inc.
Fort Collins City Council and Friends of the Poudre
River
National Association of Local Government
Environmental Professionals
Powder Basin Watershed Council
Paso Del Norte Watershed Council
CH2M HILL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Natural Aeration, Inc.
California Association of Resource Conservation
Districts
Orange County Planning & Development Services
Department
MA Watershed Initiative
New Jersey Farm Bureau
Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Resource
Center
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
Federal Highway Administration
California Department of Fish and Game
Watershed Agricultural Council
Anacostia Riverkeeper
Lower Missouri CRM Council
CSREES, University of Guam
Tennessee Valley Authority Resource Stewardship
The Nature Conservancy of Montana
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Restore America's Estuaries
Montana Watercourse, Montana State University
Nebraska Governor's Office
Sugar-Pecatonica Ecosystem Partnership
University of Virgin Islands Cooperative Extension
Service
Catawissa Creek Restoration Association
Port Graham/Nanwalek Watershed Council
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Upper Mississippi River Campaign - National Audubon
Society
The Trust for Public Lands
Leavenworth County Planning
Upperbigbl ue@navix.net
mdu@sonic.net
urban@pcei.org
mvandeusen@crwa.org
friendsoftheoccoquan@yahoo.com
rverhoeff@niobraracouncil.org
svia@awwa.org
maria.vorel@fema.gov
yritwc@alaskalife.net
lwalkoviak@gp.usbr.gov
berners@alaska.net
cwanner@poudreriver.org
nalgep@spiegelmcd.com
vicki-wares@or.nacdnet.org
swatts@utep.edu
tway@ch2m.com
wayland.robert@epa.gov
gary@circul8.com
tom-wehri@ca.nacdnet.org
wellbornm@pdsd.co.orange.ca.us
lynne.welsh@state.ma.us
edw@njfb.org
jason.wheatley@nc.usda.gov
robert.wheeler@fhwa.dot.gov
mwheetley@dfg.ca.gov
awhite@catskill.net
damon@anacostiariverkeeper.org
meadow@midrivers.com
gwiecko@uog.edu
jewilliams@tva.gov
burt williams@tnc.org
wise.louise@epa.gov
mwarmstrong@igc.org
mwolfe@montana.edu
awood@notes.state.ne.us
nli@aol.com
jwright@uvi.edu
wytoviche@udasd.kl 2.pa.us
vyeaton@yahoo.com
kaori.yoshida@fema.gov
zarxzar@salamander.com
Matt.Zieper@tpl.org
johnz@lvcoks.com
B-9
-------
APPENDICES.
B. Forum Delegate List
Facilitation Staff
Todd Barker
Bill Bottomly
Dale Burkett
Mary Jo Camrud
John Ehrmann
Karen Firehock
Melinda Holland
Connie Lewis
Macara Lousberg
Deborah Martin
Molly Mayo
Joe Piehuta
Jennifer Pratt Miles
Rex Raimond
Rosemary Romero
Frank Sagona
J. Eric Scherer
Charlie Stockman
Sarah Walen
Sam Ziegler
Meridian Institute
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Meridian Institute
Institute for Environmental Negotiation
Melinda Holland & Associates
Meridian Institute
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Meridian Institute
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Meridian Institute
Meridian Institute
Public Decisions Network
Tennessee Valley Authority Resource Stewardship
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. National Park Service, Rivers & Trails
Meridian Institute
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
tbarker@merid.org
bill_bottomly@co.blm.gov
dburkett@fs.fed.us
mcamrud@do.usbr.gov
jehrmann@merid.org
mayfly@cville.net; kef8w@virginia.edu
mholland@piedmont.net
connielewis@merid.org
lousberg.macara@epa.gov
martin.debora@epa.gov
mmayo@merid.org
Joe_Piehuta@fws.gov
sos@merid.org
rraimond@merid.org
1 10735.l535@compuserve.com
fjsagona@tva.gov
eric.scherer@ny.usda.gov
charlie_stockman@NPS.gov
swalen@merid.org
ziegler.sam@epa.gov
B-IO=
-------
REMARKS OF LINDA FISHER
Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
at the
National Watershed Forum
Arlington, Virginia
June 28, 2001
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the National Watershed Forum.
I'm delighted to be back at EPA, working for a President and Administrator who are
committed to improving environmental quality and raising the quality of life for all
Americans.
One of the best things about my job is that it allows me to meet people like you, people
who are working hard, giving their personal time and energy, to make a real difference
in their own communities and neighborhoods. You are already putting into practice
some of the most important environmental principles of our new Administration.
Today I want to thank you, encourage you, and promise my support in the years ahead.
You are living examples of what President Bush, Governor Whitman, and I believe is the
best hope for our environmental future. Let me tell you why.
A few weeks ago I was sitting with my children leafing through some old photo albums.
And I was struck by how many of them included some kind of water. Kids splashing in
the tub, swimming in a lake in Michigan, canoeing on a river, the ever present squirt
guns. It reminded me once again of the critical importance of clean water in our daily
lives. Not just in terms of our health, but as an integral part of what brings us joy and
happiness, and what makes life worth living. And I used the opportunity to explain to
them one more reason why I want to return to EPA, to help protect our nation's
precious water resources so that every family today and in the future has the
opportunity to enjoy clean water in all its many uses.
Because of my earlier career at EPA, I thought I knew the Agency and its issues fairly .
well. In fact, when I was invited back to become Deputy Administrator, I thought my
EPA experiences would make my new job a lot easier. Yet when I got back I was
C-l
-------
APPENDICES
,,iS,»,«^^ .£,.
C. Linda Fisher's Opening Remarks
surprised to discover how much the world has changed, and how much I would have to
scramble to catch up.
This conference, and the way people like you protect watersheds today, are excellent
examples of the kind of constructive, hopeful change I see at EPA . Ten years ago, when
we thought about protecting water quality, we looked at the major sources of specific
pollutants, the uses of particular rivers and streams, and the requirements of federal
water quality law. All that is still important. EPA is very proud of that fact that over the
past 30 years we've put in place a strong foundation of pollution control, particularly for
industry and wastewater treatment facilities. We're proud of the accomplishments that
flow from federal law. But as you well know, the problem is a lot bigger than that. It
includes sewage sludge and industrial grease and oils and heavy metals, to be sure. But it
also includes habitat loss and fragmentation, suburban sprawl, invasive species, air
deposition, the concentration of population along shorelines, the proliferation of home
septic systems, and many other issues we were barely aware of ten years ago.
In the years that I've been gone from the Agency, you all have made remarkable
progress in redefining the problems plaguing watersheds in this country, and expanding
the range of solutions. You're thinking more holistically than we did back in the 1980s.
You clearly understand a fundamental premise that too often gets lost in the Agency's
daily grind to put out rules and regulations and enforce the law. That fundamental
premise is this: the environment is a delicately interconnected web of life, and the web
is greater than the sum of its parts. So to protect any particular part of that web, you
always have to consider the web as a whole. The watershed is the web of life. The
watershed is greater than the sum of all the individual streams, lakes, wetlands, and
groundwater that flow through it. And to protect any part of the watershed, everyone
who affects any part of it has to be involved. You understand that well. And because of
your understanding, your knowledge, your commitment and hard work, you're
providing all of us with a lot more hope for the future of America's water.
Since I've been back, I've noticed another big change in the way the environment is
protected these days, another change that's evident in this room today, another change
that the President and Administrator strongly support. And that's the extensive, roll-up-
your-sleeves involvement of state and local governments, communities, businesses in
fact, everyone who has a stake in the health of a watershed. The federal government,
and federal laws, are necessary, but they're not sufficient. By themselves, they will never
i i i ilia n ' i i Tm C-2 "'': """' ' ""'" ' '"' :!" " ' '^".L-'ii' : « > >. i. n .»
-------
be enough to protect all the watersheds, in all their differing circumstances, across this
great country of ours.
Those of us who work in Washington simply don't know enough about the complex
problems facing our watersheds, problems that are rarely the same in any two places.
But you do. Not any one of you, but all of you taken together, and others like you. You
represent every imaginable perspective within a watershed from agriculture and
forestry and mining to state and local governments and environmental groups. You bring
a collective perspective to the job that no federal agency could hope to bring. They say
that many hands make for light work. When it comes to watersheds, many eyes make
for clear vision. And you have demonstrated your clear vision many times. The grass
roots watershed movement that has sprung up across the country, the grass roots
movement that is so clearly present in this room today, is making great things happen.
And you're making more things happen more effectively than the federal government
ever could, no matter how big our budget.
Over the past decade you're changed the face of our national watershed protection and
restoration efforts. According to EPA's Adopt a Watershed data base, there are now
more than three thousand local groups working to protect their communities' streams,
rivers, and lakes. These productive partnerships include local governments, local
businesses, and local environmental groups united to protect watershed health. These
grassroots watershed partnerships are democracy in action. They're the lifeblood of our
democratic system. That's why I think it's no exaggeration to say that your grassroots
partnerships not only improve the health of watersheds, they strengthen democracy
itself.
As you know, both President Bush and Governor Whitman came to their current jobs
from state government. They both believe that the federal government does best when
it encourages and supports those closest to environmental problems to have a big hand
in designing solutions. They both want to see more authority shifted to state and local
governments, and they both want to see much-expanded partnerships among
government, business, and environmental community groups. They both want to see the
work of grassroots watershed partnerships expand. This is not to say we're abdicating
the federal role. Far from it. We're going to do everything we can to make your job
easier. We're absolutely committed to tough federal enforcement, for example. We're
developing nutrient criteria that can be applied in every watershed. We're working with
-------
APPENDICES.
C. Linda Rsher's Opening Remarks
USDA, states, leading academic experts, and other stakeholders to develop better ways
to protect watersheds from animal wastes. We've joined with state and local
governments to control pathogen and nutrient pollution from septic systems and other
onsite sewage management. And we're working across the board with all stakeholders
to assure effective implementation of the Clean Water Act's TMDLs, which provide the
technical underpinning for our mutual efforts to protect watersheds.
And jn all our watershed protection activities at EPA we're going to take advantage of
the growing environmental expertise found at the state and local levels. We intend to
give you more flexibility to pursue our shared environmental goals in the ways that you
think are best There's another role that the federal government - particularly EPA -
can play, a role that the President and Governor Whitman are committed to
strengthening. And that's the collection, aggregation, and distribution of environmental
information. The great thinkers who founded this country knew that knowledge is a
fundamental prerequisite for a democracy, just as the free flow of information is a
fundamental prerequisite for a free market.
At EPA, we believe that complete, accurate, and easily accessible information is
unquestionably the bedrock of effective environmental protection. So we're putting in
place new and innovative technologies that are revolutionizing the way environmental
data is collected and disseminated.
This is another remarkable difference between EPA today and ten years ago. And it's a
difference that will make your job a lot easier. For example, EPA has modernized
STORET, the nation's largest data base on water quality, so that citizen groups can
readily access the data. This data base makes it easier for everyone to understand local
water quality whether they're government officials, community activists, a high school
biology class, or girl scouts working to earn their water drop patches. It makes it easier
for everyone to know what they can do to protect it.
EPA and our federal partners are also developing a new internet-based Watershed
Information Network It is accessible by the public and provides consolidated
information about programs and resources available to help you. This network links.
users to financial, technical, and hands- on assistance available from EPA and other
federal and non-federal partners.
-------
Another thing: EPA and our partners are working to improve publicly-accessible
information about the quality of the nation's surface waters through the development of
the Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results information system,
called WATERS. WATERS displays geographic water quality information and allows
citizens to quickly identify the water quality standards, impaired waters, and TMDL
status of surface water across the country. We're doing all this, and more, so that you
have more tools to do your job. Information is power, and in the years ahead you'll have
more and more power to take the actions necessary to protect the water that flows
through your neighborhoods.
You've come here to Washington to discuss the barriers that impede watershed
protection and restoration efforts across the country. That's an admirable goal, and I
look forward to hearing about your findings. I intend to consider them carefully as EPA
designs its own watershed agenda for the future. Under Governor Whitman, EPA will
make every effort to ensure that our work at the federal level dovetails with yours. We
will continue to do the job entrusted to us by the American people.
We will still take the lead in many of our traditional areas of responsibility. But the real
leaders on the ground, and along the shoreline, are you. So we're counting on you to
form the partnerships and tailor the actions to meet you unique local circumstances.
We're counting on you to share your experiences at conferences like this. We're
counting on you to learn from each other, draw information and strength from each
other, so all of our efforts are smarter and more effective. We're asking a lot from you,
but I'm confident you'll deliver. Because of you, I'm confident that some day my children
will sit with their children on their knees and look back with smiles and wonder at all
the blessings that clean water has brought to their lives.
Good luck over the next few days, and thank you very much for inviting me.
-------
APPENDICES
D. Innovative Approaches
APPENDIX D - INNOVATIVE APPROACHES
NATIONAL WATERSHED FORUM
SHOWCASE OF INNOVATIVE APPROACHES/CASES
TITLE:
AMD&ART: A CASE STUDY OF INNOVATIVE FUNDING FOR
WATERSHED RESTORATION
PRESENTED BY: T. Allan Comp, Ph.D., Office of Surface Mining
ORGANIZATION: AMD&ART, Inc.
AMD&ART is a non-profit organization that is artfully transforming environmental liabilities into
community assets in the coal country of southwestern Pennsylvania. The AMD&ART process is
one that combines public art, environmental improvement, and community engagement in
treating abandoned mine drainage (AMD), the most widespread environmental, economic and
social problem of the Appalachian region. With multidisciplinary intervention and wide public
participation, AMD&ART has created a holistic approach to recreating places, incorporating
recreational elements, artful spaces, educational opportunities, historic reminders and restored
wildlife habitat into designs for passive AMD treatment systems. This approach honors a past of
hard work and community building by bringing that same civic engagement and hard work to the
design and construction of treatment systems. The treatment systems clean polluted waters,
reach people, restore nature and revitalize abandoned spaces. This innovative process has
allowed AMD&ART to forge many unlikely allies and build useful partnerships for funding.
TITLE:
BIGALK CREEK WATER QUALITY PROJECT, HOWARD COUNTY,
IOWA
PRESENTED BY: Frank Moore, Howard Soil and Water Conservation District
ORGANIZATION: Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
Bigalk Creek has always been a ready source of fresh water for raising livestock, but now it is
producing something even more, rainbow trout.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) fisheries biologists have documented that
rainbow trout are naturally reproducing on the 1.2-mile stretch of creek, above its confluence
with the Upper Iowa River in Howard County, Iowa. Bigalk Creek becomes only the third
stream in Iowa where natural reproduction of rainbow trout has been documented. The state
currently has 105 trout streams covering 307 miles.
Documentation of natural rainbow trout spawning comes after an extensive, four-year
watershed improvement project at Bigalk Creek The project included working with private
landowners in the watershed to implement best management practices on their land to improve
water quality.
.. ' "-"-'' ' .' " =a D-l" ' " " "''
-------
The natural reproduction of rainbow trout on Bigalk Creek is an added bonus to a very
successful water quality improvement project. The efforts at Bigalk Creek show that substantial
improvements to water quality can be made on our coldwater streams by working with private
landowners without acquiring public ownership of the land.
A survey of Bigalk Creek by IDNR fisheries biologists in 1999 counted 80 trout in the stream, a
600 percent increase from a 1992 sample when 12 fish along the same stretch were found.
Biologists also noted that 20 percent of the rainbow trout caught could be classified as
"naturalized," meaning the fish had been in the stream long enough to get their natural colors
and are feeding on what would be a natural diet of insects and small fish. The presence of
naturalized rainbow trout is an indicator that natural reproduction can occur. Included in the
sampling were less than year old rainbow trout, documenting natural reproduction. Fisheries
biologists note that the find is particularly significant because baby trout are extremely hard to
catch during sampling efforts.
The Bigalk Creek Water Quality Protection Project was a joint effort by the IDNR, Iowa
Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, U.S. Natural Resources and Conservation
Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Howard County Soil and Water
Conservation District.
The cooperation between private landowners and the various agencies was the key to success
for the project, according to Frank Moore, coordinator of the Bigalk Creek project. The
primary concern for Bigalk Creek at the beginning of the project was the extensive livestock
grazing that took place along the stream. It was causing excessive erosion and water degradation
from animal waste. Nearly 90 percent of the 1.2-mile target area along the stream was
extensively grazed when the project began. Today, only a 1,700-foot section of the stream
continues to have cattle grazing. The removal the cattle from the stream did not necessarily
mean losing a primary source of water for producers. In the case of Manley and Linda Bigalk
(who's family the creek is named after), a large pasture along the stream was fenced off and nose
pumps were installed in 1992. The pumps, installed with EPA section 319 water quality grant
money administered by the IDNR, allow cattle to draw water from Bigalk Creek without ever
getting close to the stream bank.
The project was able to not only document the environmental benefits to using best
management practices, but the economical rewards as well. From the beginning, it was felt to be
essential that the economics of best management practices be provided. Farmers will not adopt
these practices unless they can be shown that it is financially beneficial over the long term. The
effort to help farmers keep better records paid particular dividends in 1998 when crop prices
plummeted. Adequate records allowed these farmers to make management decisions to
weather the financial crisis.
Erosion was reduced by 12,785 tons of soil in the Bigalk Creek watershed during the project. If
current sediment control structures remain in place, it is estimated that erosion will be reduced
by more than 5,000 tons a year in the future. Nutrient and pesticide usage by farmers was also
reduced by the implementation of an Integrated Crop Management program (ICM). Farmers
completed extensive soil testing, took legume and manure nitrogen credits, and hired crop
consultants to scout fields for weed and insect problems. The goal was to apply fertilizer and
pesticides only where and when it was needed and in the proper amount. This high level
management allowed the producers to cut their costs while maintaining yields and profits.
*> ***q»^*^^l^^^^^^iPaT»«a5a D-2 *. --
-------
Many also adapted no-till farming practices, which further reduced the amount of sediment
reaching the stream.
TITLE:
THE BITTERROOT WATERSHED PARTNERSHIP
PRESENTED BY: Roxa French
ORGANIZATION: Bitter Root Water Forum
The Bitterroot Fires of 2000 burned more than 350,000 acres. About 16 percent of the rural
county and Bitterroot River watershed in southwestern Montana were burned. This recent fire
event put the Bitterroot watershed on the radar screen of local organizations in a new way.
The result is the Large Scale Watershed Restoration Project by the new Bitterroot Watershed
Partnership.
The Bitterroot Watershed Partnership is a collaboration supporting restoration needs,
monitoring and management challenges, community outreach and education opportunities, and
positive community and economic development in the Bitterroot River watershed. The
partnership's first step was to complete a 5-year business plan that was accepted by the U.S.
Forest Service Large Scale Watershed Initiative as one of their 16 nationwide projects.
The partners envision a future where the Bitterroot watershed's health is secure. The proposal
to achieve this builds upon the Bitterroot Watershed Partnership strengths and details initiatives
to improve our capacity and the capacity of all watershed residents to answer existing and
future threats. The partnership will focus all effort within the guidance of four mutual
objectives:
Objective One: Habitat Conservation and Restoration
Objective Two: Monitoring and Decision Making
Objective Three: Communication and Education
Objective Four Economic Development
The major challenge within the partnership echoes the social challenge within the community.
The partnership agrees in wanting a clean, healthy watershed, but do not individually agree
entirely upon the best path to achieve this objective. However, the members of the partnership
have pledged to work together to find solutions, to work to accomplish programs incrementally
and learn from the actions.
The current challenge facing the partnership is financial constraints. Some entities located
within the watershed may wish to "buy" the product, but they may not be able to afford the
costs. A prime example is the competition between the effect of rapid growth, that is
"squeezing" riparian habitats and rural agricultural production, and the resultant increasing
pressure on the valley's heavily used water resources.
The partnership's business plan includes an approach for developing a cost-effectiveness analysis
as a way to gauge the potential costs and benefits associated with watershed restoration
projects. It is the assumption that determining whether an action represents a worthwhile
social gain depends on whether the net gain in benefits equals or exceeds the net costs.
"* ' ^ + jl """"""" ""-" '- ' * D-31-
-------
APPENDICES
The partnership has selected the American Dipper as its logo. The Bitterroot Watershed
Partnership realized that, like the partnership, the dipper's vitality depends upon unpolluted
water. The American Dipper "connects" all parts of the watershed and is a symbol of the
connection the partnership shares with the watershed.
TITLE:
BRASSTOWN CREEK RESTORATION
PRESENTED BY: Jason Wheatley, Soil Conservationist
ORGANIZATION: USDA/NRCS
Brasstown Creek flows 14 miles from Brasstown Bald, the highest point in Georgia, northward
to join the Hiawassee River at Brasstown, North Carolina. By 1994, this creek, like others in the
Hiawassee River watershed, had been declared impaired by both the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Local citizens, having
seen their streams deteriorate, and soil and water conservation districts from two Georgia and
two North Carolina counties formed the Hiawassee River Watershed Coalition.
In 1999, this Coalition received a $2.1 million grant from the North Carolina Clean Water
Management Trust Fund to restore the North Carolina portion of Brasstown Creek But the
Coalition had a problem, which was no technical expertise to do the job. They asked help from
the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The NRCS and the Hiawassee River
Watershed Coalition agreed to equally fund a soil conservationist to direct the Brasstown
Creek Restoration Project.
The $2.1 million grant required the Coalition to restore 20,000 feet of streambank. Today,
16,000 feet of bank have been restored and 20 acres of riparian buffer planted. The project is
ahead of schedule and under budget. Probably, 30,000 feet of repair will be done for the
contracted price for 20,000 feet.
Jason Wheatley, the director of the Brasstown Creek project that is jointly funded by the NRCS
and the Hiawassee River Watershed Coalition, will explain the day-to-day management of this
experiment in a government agency/citizen group partnership.
TITLE: COLLABORATIVE APPROACH FOR MANAGING A WESTERN
WATERSHED
PRESENTED BY: Jim Blankenship
ORGANIZATION: North Fork River Improvement Association
,D-4 i=
-------
D. Innovative Approaches
The North Fork River Improvement Association (NFRIA) was established in 1996 as a volunteer
coalition, aimed at restoring the ecological health of North Fork of the Gunnison River for the
benefit of the entire community. The group empowers a broad-based coalition of riverfront
landowners, farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, in-stream gravel mining companies,
sportsmen, boaters, irrigation companies, and concerned members of the community. This
"solution-focused" organization is a unique collaboration of diverse community interests and
government agencies, brought together to develop resolutions to the common problems
associated with the valley's most valuable resource, the river. It is designed as an alternative to
traditional "top-down" government regulatory approaches."
Past studies showed that degraded fish and wildlife habitat along the North Fork of the
Gunnison River were primarily caused by excessive streambank erosion due to channelization.
The channelization of this river began approximately 100 years ago as a means to protect
agricultural land from spring flooding and to expand crop production in the floodplain. This was
a well intended but misguided practice It cut the river off from its floodplain, increased stress
and erosion on the riverbanks, decreased wetland and riparian areas, devastated the fish habitat,
damaged important irrigation facilities, and subsequently reduced water quality by increasing
sediment yield to the stream. This is a widespread problem through an approximate 12-mile
reach of river from east of Paonia to west of Hotchkiss.
The organization was originally formed by a group of riverfront landowners aimed at researching
alternative methods to reducing extreme bank erosion along the North Fork of the Gunnison
River. As other water users and river interests joined the group, it quickly transformed into an
innovative local watershed group, focused on restoring the ecological health of the floodplain
while working to develop consensus among all interests. The mission of this association is to
meet current and future demands for traditional uses of the river while improving stream stability,
riparian habitat, and ecosystem function along the North Fork of the Gunnison River.
This all-volunteer group, which has one part-time staff person, is working to:
Educate the community on the value and responsible use of the river's natural resources
Engage local farmers and ranchers in riparian restoration and agricultural conservation
Improve water conservation through innovative and sustainable irrigation practices
Encourage the community to develop collaborative solutions to complex resource problems
Restore proper riverine function to damaged sections of the river
Improve and monitor water quality
Enhance fish and wildlife habitat
Disseminate information to the community, government agencies, and watershed groups.
This organization is excited to face the local challenges as an informed grassroots community
collaboration. The North Fork River Improvement Association looks forward to working
closely with local individuals, government agencies, and other watershed organizations to ask
better questions, find substantive answers, and ultimately promote positive action.
D-5'
-------
TITLE:
COMMUNITYVIZ: USING TECHNOLOGY TO ENHANCE WATERSHED
DECISION MAKING
PRESENTED BY: Dace Carver, Partnership Relations
ORGANIZATION: The Orton Family Foundation
The presentation will demonstrate the three modules in CommunityViz, Scenario
Constructor Town Builder 3D, and Policy Simulator. Attendees will see a live fly-through of
Lyons, Colorado, so they can visualize the character of the community (Lyons is located in the
foothills between Boulder and Rocky Mountain National Park. It features steep hogbacks
surrounding the St. Vrain River). Development impact analyses will follow with evaluation of
development suitability and composite summaries using standard ArcView (vector) themes as
base data. The development suitability weighs resources and hazard overlays to evaluate
potential impacts. The composite summary will add together nonpoint source sediment
generators (e.g. streets, overlot grading and agriculture) to estimate sediment loads. The
software offers an open tool for modeling spatial information. Users (the audience) can offer
their input on the assumptions within the model, reflecting their perceptions and preferences.
Results of the analyses will then be viewed in three dimensions.
CommunityViz is developed by the Orton Family Foundation. It is a suite of software tools
designed to assist with spatial decision-making and analysis of land-use scenarios. This suite of
integrated ArcView GIS extensions helps users view, project, analyze, and understand potential
changes to their environment by offering three-dimensional exploration and alternative scenario
building and analysis. CommunityViz is a tool that significantly increases the ability of citizens
and their government to define and shape their desired future
Scenario Constructor is a powerful tool for performing impact analysis. It allows users to create
dynamic models based on their own assumptions and parameters. Scenario Constructor
introduces the concept of the Scenario view, which is expanding the power of ArcView by
providing a customizable framework
TownBuilder 3D provides an interactive, real-time, three-dimensional environment. The user
can create and manipulate a virtual representation of his or her town and visually explore
different land-use/management alternatives. Source data is made up of ArcView themes or
layers. Townbuilder 3D contains a model library, which is delivered containing a generic set of
building models and features. It also supports directional fly-through of the three-dimensional
scene enabling the user to visualize alternative designs.
D-6 '.=
-------
APPENDICES
D. Innovative Approaches
TITLE:
INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TOWARDS ACHIEVING WATER QUALITY
GOALS AND COST-SAVINGS DURING TMDL DEVELOPMENT
PRESENTED BY: Avinash Patwardhan, Ph.D., P.M.
ORGANIZATION: CH2M Hill
Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that states identify and submit to the U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a list of waters that do not meet water quality
standards. All water bodies impaired by pollutants appearing on the 303(d) list are required to
have Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) established. A TMDL is a quantitative process of
assessing water quality problems, pollutant sources, and pollutant reductions needed to restore
and protect a river, a stream or lake. A TMDL is also the amount of a pollutant a water body
can absorb, and still meet water quality standards for designated uses such as drinking water,
aquatic life and recreation. A stream segment may have more than one TMDL developed if it
has multiple pollutants.
The goal of the TMDL program is to restore and protect appropriate and attainable beneficial
water body uses and with the added goal on the part of affected point and nonpoint sources, the
restoration and protection efforts be implemented in the most cost-effective ways practicable.
Unfortunately, the pace of the TMDL program, as currently driven by court actions in most
states, precludes development of TMDLs and implementation plans based on sound science with
minimal uncertainty. Furthermore, of the nation's over 21,000 water body segments listed for
not meeting water quality standards, a significant share can either be shown to qualify for de-
listing or could meet their water quality goals more effectively and at lower cost by preventing
or refining TMDLs. Thus, TMDL alternatives are worth pursuing.
This presentation describes TMDL procedures/alternatives and associated tools for watershed
management, especially for achieving compliance with the CWA. Stakeholders can identify,
which alternatives may apply to their own situation and choose a path forward toward a cost-
saving solution. There are a number of technical and regulatory actions or opportunities
available to point and nonpoint sources that are or maybe affected by TMDLs. These tools
include, but are not limited to, data analysis, modeling, site-specific criteria, use attainability
analyses, watershed implementation plans, trading, and mitigation banking. Use of these tools
may in fact allow the TMDL to be implemented in a manner that is cost effective and will help
attain additional watershed restoration benefits. These tools are described in the context of a
broader Watershed Stewardship Action Strategy (WSAS), where they can be presented as
TMDL alternatives and an implementation plan can be tailored to the stakeholders'
specifications.
The applicability of the tools and the potential magnitude of the cost-savings from implementing
a TMDL alternative depend upon where the state government agency is in the TMDL .*.. -.,;
development process:
I. Water body not listed,
2. Water body listed and TMDL forecasted,
3. TMDL developed,
4. TMDL enforced, and,
5. TMDL in continuing implementation.
-------
h-jjKii=Pw^i;ir"rijiv i7 -Y^t--- y '-* *?%s~3S^^'£££?'- ---. _, '^lii'i n-- -^ '"'""'"--SSS?***^"-J'~r"
APPENDICES"
The benefits of early action in terms of cost-savings cannot be over emphasized, but no matter
when TMDL alternatives are introduced into the process, stakeholders can reap the benefits
from the use of these tools and the watershed management process. Implementation of these
tools is illustrated in the context of case studies involving trading, watershed management and
mitigation banking.
TITLE:
PRESENTED BY:
INNOVATIVE STATE PROGRAMS: MASSACHUSETTS & OREGON
APPROACHES
Karl Hokonen, Watershed Manager, Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs and Melissa Leoni, Willamette Regional Program
Representative, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
OREGON APPROACH
Watershed councils are voluntary, non-regulatory, locally organized groups established to
improve the condition of watersheds in their local area. The 1 995 Oregon Legislature
unanimously passed House Bill 344 1 providing guidance in establishing watershed councils, but
made it clear that formation of a council is a local government decision, with no state approval
required. Watershed councils are required to represent the interests in the basin and be
balanced in their makeup. Watershed councils offer local residents the opportunity to
independently evaluate watershed conditions and identify opportunities to restore or enhance
the conditions. Through the councils, partnerships between residents, local, state and federal
agency staff, and other groups can be developed.
Across the state, local watershed councils are systematically assessing watershed conditions to
determine problems and restoration opportunities using the Oregon Watershed Assessment
Manual. The information gained from assessments provides a necessary starting place for
planning ways to restore watershed function. As watershed councils complete assessments, they
collaborate with landowners, soil and water conservation districts, businesses, government, and
others on restoration projects designed to resolve problems and improve watershed health.
When aggregated, watershed assessments will play a critical role in developing a statewide
strategy that points toward key restoration opportunities in each region of the state.
The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) is charged with promoting and funding
voluntary actions aimed at enhancing Oregon's watersheds. OWEB's vision is to help create and
maintain healthy watersheds and natural habitats that support thriving communities and strong
economies. The Board is structured to foster collaboration among citizens, agencies, and local
interests to accomplish this charge. Such collaboration supports Oregon's statewide efforts to
restore critical salmon runs, improve water quality across the landscape, and enhance the
biodiversity of ecosystems that are critical to achieving healthy watersheds. OWEB administers
a grant program that awards more than $20 million annually to support voluntary efforts by -
Oregohians consistent with this charge.
-------
D. Innovative Approaches
MASSACHUSETTS APPROACH
The Massachusetts Watershed Initiative (MWI) is not simply a new name. Nor is it solely a State
program. It is a broad partnership of state and federal agencies, conservation organizations,
businesses, municipal officials and individuals. The MWI is an innovative, results-oriented
program that protects and restores natural resources and ecosystems on a watershed basis by:
9 Finding the sources of pollution and taking cooperative action to clean them up;
9 Teaching and helping groups and communities to protect and restore their local waters;
UP Expanding communication among local, private and public partners so everyone works
together to solve water resource problems;
9 Improving coordination among government agencies, and,
9 Directing resources to critical needs so our limited dollars go further to resolving the most
important problems.
Watershed Teams, made up of representatives of governmental agencies and community
partners (non-profit organizations, municipal boards, and businesses), coordinate the watershed
protection efforts in each of the 27 major watersheds of Massachusetts.
The primary goals of the MWI are to:
9 Improve water quality;
A Restore natural flows to rivers;
9 Protect and restore habitats;
9 Improve public access and balanced resource use;
9 Improve local capacity to protect water resources; and,
9 Promote shared responsibility for watershed protection and management.
This session will highlight the lessons learned from the MWI from the perspective of Karl
Honkonen, Watershed Manager.
TITLE:
LARGE-SCALE WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT
PRESENTED BY: Jim Sedell
ORGANIZATION: USDA Forest Service
In mid-1999, the forest Service turned back to its roots, and, at the same time, it dramatically
broke new ground. Over a century ago, public concern about adequate supplies of clean water
led to the establishment of federally protected forest reserves. These reserves have been
managed for multiple objectives over the years loosing site of the original charter. Now
' i - »! ** " »- » D-9 =
-------
__-«*_ _a ma, **...-, ^ y^^ ^ j.
^Innovative Approaches
helping to refocus the agency on its original purpose, the establishment of the Large-Scale
Watershed Restoration Project provides a compelling first act. Around the country, 15 large
watersheds - providing water for millions of people and habitat for numerous sensitive and
threatened species - have been selected to become national prototypes for more visionary
management of ailing watersheds and ecosystems. To spur a better future, the agency increased
its investment in these watersheds to over $24 million, trusting that what is learned from this
experiment could be shared and used in other settings. Partners matched this funding by
providing an additional $22 million.
Specific requirements are attached to the funding. Business plans are essential. Building new
partnerships and strengthening old ones is essential. Projects on the ground, designed to move
towards stated objectives, are essential. Accountability is essential. A plan for self-sufficiency
within 5 years is required. Short-term success is already apparent. From each watershed, the
scenes of restoration are encouraging: cleaner drinking water; increased fish populations;
healthy wetlands; decreased risks from wildfire, insect, and disease infestation; improved
recreation experiences and productive forests; unpolluted water due to road closings and better
management practices; streambanks protected by trees and other vegetation; abundant wildlife
habitat; and fewer invasive non-native plants. Long-term gains stand to be even more impressive
as the cumulative effects of restoration are realized.
This presentation focuses on the establishment, conduct, and accomplishments of this national
Large-Scale Watershed Restoration Project.
TITLE:
NEW COMMUNITY DESIGN TO THE RESCUE: FULFILLING ANOTHER
AMERICAN DREAM
PRESENTED BY: Joel S. Hirschhorn
ORGANIZATION: National Governors Association
New Community Design (NCD) offers a distinct alternative to the developmental "sprawl" that
has dominated real estate growth over the last 50 years. NCD principles can be used to create
vibrant neighborhoods of housing, parks, and schools within walking distance of shops, civic
services, jobs, and transit, in short, a modern version of the traditional American town of times
past.
Key features of NCD include:
Extensive mixed land use,
Reduced land consumption,
Community centers,
Ample greenspace,
Transportation options, and
Building designs that reflect the local culture and harmonize with the natural
environment.
NCD projects also can help improve public health, preserve open space, and enhance
environmental quality.
-.-.-. 11 IJJ.I.MI*-f,-,^;.j:»-:. ;M. *.k»» s:i;ii'S'.m,&,H..MUHIK:i,u,j-nm D- I 0 Hr- ...
-------
NCD does not appeal to everyone, though about a third of home seekers would prefer to live
in NCD communities if they were available (according to national surveys). However, few
people have this choice. The level of NCD construction in recent years is but a fraction, less
than one percent, of total housing construction. The problem is not insufficient consumer
demand, but rather extremefy little supply.
Unfortunately, the current real estate development market has been biased toward sprawl:
Zoning laws encourage sprawl and other single land use development.
Though new sprawl development require costly public infrastructure (roads, sewers,
water connections, etc), most of these costs are passed through the broader tax base of
the locality, providing little incentive to build in older areas with existing infrastructure.
Building codes favor new construction over rehabilitation and reuse of older buildings.
Governors can help the public understand the full range of NCD benefits, including more
housing choices for people. Specific actions can include:
Reaching more citizens for input to discussions on growth and its impacts on quality of
life through publishing survey forms in newspapers and on Internet sites,
Creating design centers where citizens can see alternative community designs and
interact with new digital visualization technology tools to express their preferences, and
Using visual preference surveys at public meetings for community based planning and
design.
Most local governments are now using zoning codes that support housing subdivisions and other
single use development rather than NCD. States can help local governments adopt codes which
support NCD development, and level the regulatory playing field. Several states, including
Maryland, Minnesota, and Utah, have developed model codes for local governments to consider
using or adapting.
States can also level the playing field by reducing spending that now supports land-intensive,
greenfield development and its high infrastructure costs. States can target spending in designated
growth areas. In addition, states and communities can make greater use of impact fees for
recovering the true costs of providing infrastructure and public services to developments.
Reducing subsidies for sprawl development is necessary to level the playing field where NCD
can compete because it offers lower infrastructure costs on a per capita or per dwelling basis.
Governors and their appropriate cabinet members could work with leaders of state financial
institutions, developers and builders, business associations, community organizations, and non-
profits with considerable experience in community development to develop more effective
public-private partnerships that promote and finance NCD projects. By recognizing the difficulty
in financing NCDs, governors could recommend that state pension funds consider financing such
projects.
Governors could also direct state agencies to support NCD projects, especially urban and
suburban infill projects. This can be done by expediting permitting, giving state financial
assistance for NCD projects from existing brownfields and main street programs, and targeting
state capital spending on projects that enhance NCD projects or locations for them.
-------
"'""-^^^fA^^f^s'J^.
APPMlGES
TITLE:
PARTNERSHIPS FOR RESTORATION IN THE BUTTE CREEK
WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA
PRESENTED BY: Dan Keppen, P.E.
ORGANIZATION: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
The Sacramento Valley's initiative and efforts to help protect salmon and other aquatic species
are unprecedented and are now recognized as one of the most exciting and progressive
voluntary salmon restoration efforts in the United States. On Butte Creek, an important
tributary to the Sacramento River, over a dozen agencies and stakeholder groups have
addressed or will address nearly every fishery impediment identified by regulatory agencies.
More importantly, record numbers of spring-run Chinook salmon have returned to their native
spawning grounds.
The Butte Creek watershed is located on the east side of the Sacramento Valley, California,
traverses through the Butte Sink, Butte Slough, and Sutter Bypass to the confluence with
Sacramento River. It is one of the few havens for the federally threatened spring-run Chinook
salmon. Butte Creek, as it, is an extremely complex mix of diversion structures, operational
schedules, and stakeholder/user groups. This complexity and interdependence of the various
user groups require a very high level of local stakeholder/user group input.
Since 1994, Butte Creek interests have initiated far-reaching efforts to screen diversions,
refurbish fish ladders, construct siphons, remove dams and implement other habitat
improvement projects to enhance the environment. On the main migration corridor for Butte
Creek spring-run salmon, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California
Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Water Resources, California
Waterfowl Association, Ducks Unlimited, and Northern California Water Association are
working with local water users and fishery agencies to determine the feasibility of reducing or
eliminating fish passage and entfainment problems. Other key partners include the Butte Sink
Water Users Association, Reclamation District 1004, RD 70, Butte Slough Irrigation Company,
RD 1500, Butte Sink Waterfowl Association, Western Canal Water District, and RD 1660. The
objective of this program is to facilitate stakeholder coordination to ensure that restoration
actions meet the needs of all of the disparate users and by virtue of stakeholder buy-in, enhance
the long-term effectiveness of restoration actions.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) identified several projects within the
Butte Creek watershed that would improve fishery resource conditions, specifically spring-run
Chinook salmon and steelhead trout. A number of these projects at Durham-Mutual, Rancho
Esquon (Adams Diversion Dam), and Gorrill Land Company (Gorrill Diversion Dam) were
constructed in 1998 and 1999, respectively. Western Canal Water District's $ 11 million siphon
project features construction of a siphon under Butte Creek to transport irrigation water
across the creek without impacting migrating salmon, including the spring-run Chinook salmon.
As a direct result of this work, several miles of new spring-run habitat have been opened up to
migrating fish.
-------
Another key project relating to Butte Creek restoration efforts is the M & T Chico Ranch
relocation and screening of its pumping station from the mouth of Big Chico Creek to the
Sacramento River. It was recently completed for a total cost of $5 million. This project will
ensure a guaranteed water supply to over 8,000 acres of permanent wetlands and over 1,500
acres of seasonal wetlands. Additionally, it also protects habitat for migrating spring-run
Chinook salmon. One other important benefit of this project is M & T Ranch's agreement to
provide fish flows in the amount of 40 cubjc feet per second to Butte Creek.
Cooperation between all of the projects as they proceed is of utmost importance in ensuring
that the system will work as a whole. Facilitation of the distinct and disparate groups is needed
to ensure that as issues arise, an understanding is reached and recorded which meets the
project goals of enhancing fish passage while maintaining the viability of associated agricultural
and managed wetlands operations. Ongoing implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program,
CVPIA, and a local county watershed management proposal will help to meet these challenges.
TITLE:
PROTECTING WATERSHEDS THROUGH CONSERVATION FINANCE
PRESENTED BY: Matthew Zieper
ORGANIZATION: The Trust for Public Land
The Trust for Public Land's (TPL) Conservation Finance program work with state and local
government officials and community leaders to protect land for a wide range of purposes, with a
significant focus on watershed protection, across the country. Over the past five years, TPL's
conservation finance program has helped raise more than $25 billion at the state and local level
for land conservation. Of the 145 measures that TPL has worked on during this period, 83
percent have been successful.
Drawing from this experience, the presentation will provide an overview of how TPL's
conservation finance program works and outline how watershed stakeholders can approach
conservation finance as a means to achieve their goals. The product of one element of this
conservation finance work, public opinion research, will be showcased to illustrate the strong
support for public financing of water-related conservation.
The talk will present examples that highlight best practices that state and local governments are
using to protect watersheds such as:
North Carolina's Clean Water Management Trust Fund
New Jersey's Green Acres program and county responses
Chesapeake Bay Commission (MD, PA, VA) efforts to protect 20% of the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed from development by 2010
Georgia Greenspace Program "
«, D-I3=
-------
The presentation will also include an overview of land conservation finance efforts that:
Preserve critical natural resources at Ocean County, NJ,
Promote flood control at Napa County, CA, and,
Protect drinking water supplies at Mountain Island Lake, NC and San Antonio, TX
TITLE:
WORKING ON THE RIVER- THE 1,366 MILE JOURNEY OF THE
AUDUBON ARK
PRESENTED BY: Dan McGuiness, Campaign Director
ORGANIZATION: National Audubon Society
The best way to convince someone that the river is critical habitat and a beautiful place is simply
to get them out there. The river, to some extent, can speak for itself it is given an audience.
That is why Audubon Ark was built. It is a boat that travels on the river each summer,
providing opportunities for people to see the river firsthand. By bringing the Ark to
communities, the crew gets a chance to visit with school children, adults, and community
leaders to build lasting and long-term working relationships at the local level.
Over the last three years, the Ark has traveled 1366 miles of the Upper Mississippi River from
the Headwaters at Lake Itasca, Minnesota downstream to Cairo, Illinois. It has visited with
more than 25,000 people in 90 communities. Nearly 2500 people actually came on board the
Ark to see it firsthand and learn about our work.
The Ark is also building a constituency for river protection by bringing exhibits, performing
music, holding press conferences, working with school children and honoring community elders.
The website, www.audubonark.org, will provide a sample of what has been done in October
2000 and May and June 2001. By using the Internet, the crew has provided periodic reports on
the ecological health of the river, what has been learned and did in river communities, and what
life on board the Ark is like.
It is needed to get more people, especially school children, out on the river. The dream for the
future is to have a permanent Audubon Ark "floating environmental education center and
research vessel" on the Upper Mississippi River by the summer of 2004 It will travel from
Minneapolis, Minnesota to Cairo, Illinois throughout the navigation season, stopping in
communities for not just a few hours or a day, but for several days at a time. On the river above
Minneapolis, an additional a fleet of canoes will be traveling on 500 miles of river.
In each community, the Ark will find partner organizations such as museums, organizations,
chambers of commerce, environmental education centers or agencies who will co-sponsor field
trips for kids and adults out on the river to see it and experience it firsthand. The boat will be
equipped with water sampling gear, basic testing equipment, a wet lab, spotting scopes and
binoculars, exhibits and a river library. The- crew will teach river navigation, river and watershed
ecology and natural and cultural history.
D-14 E
-------
APPENDICES
D. Innovative Approaches
The Ark will provide, for many people, the first opportunity in their lives to actually be on the
river and in its backwaters - to experience the legendary and world-renowned Mississippi River
firsthand with a crew of naturalists and river experts to help interpret and guide the experience.
Increased fish populations,
Healthy wetlands,
Decreased risks from wildfire, insect, and disease infestation,
Improved recreation experiences and productive forests,
Unpolluted water due to road closings and better management practices,
Streambanks protected by trees and other vegetation,
Abundant wildlife habitat, and
Fewer invasive non-native plants.
Long-term gains stand to be even more impressive as the cumulative effects of restoration are
realized.
------- |