June 2OO2
#68
Nonpoint Source
News-Notes
The Condition of the Water-Related Environment
The Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
The Ecological Management & Restoration of Watersheds
Commentary
EPA Leading Effort to Safeguard Nation's Waters
In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) significantly increased its efforts in defending the nation's water infrastructure against
terrorist attack. As EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water G. Tracy Mehan III says, "Doing our
part to increase the security of water and wastewater systems is one of EPA's top priorities this
year." A major step in that effort was the establishment of the Water Protection Task Force in
October 2001. Housed in the Office of Water, the all-EPA Task Force includes experts in a variety
of subjects, including drinking water and wastewater treatment, security, training and outreach,
and funding. The goal of the Water Protection Task Force is to help make drinking water and
wastewater utilities as safe as possible, as quickly as possible. Working with the states, tribes,
utilities, and other appropriate partners, EPA strives to provide utilities with the best information
and tools available to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks. As might be imagined, this
effort is being pursued on an accelerated schedule.
The Universe of Drinking Water and Waste Water Systems
The Water Protection Task Force works with a very large and diverse population of water and
wastewater utilities. Of the approximately 168,000 public water systems in the United States,
54,000 are community water systems that supply water to 264 million people. Approximately 80
percent of the population in the United States is served by only 7 percent of the systemslarge
utilities that serve more than 10,000 people each. The great majority of systems, conversely, are
small and serve relatively small populations. On the wastewater side, 20 percent of the
approximately 16,000 publicly owned wastewater treatment works serve the major metropolitan
areas and consequendy a large portion of the population.
Inside this Issue
Commentary
EPA Leading Effort to Safeguard Nation's Waters 1
Notes on the National Scene
319 Success Stories Volume III Released 3
Taking the TMDL Program to the Public 3
EPA Issues New Integrated Water Quality Reporting Guidance 5
New Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants 6
Stakeholders Have Their Say 6
Attention on Deck: Control NPS from Marinas and Recreational Boating . 7
State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership Forum 8
America Celebrates Wetlands Month 10
News from States, Tribes, and Localities
Uncovering a Pollution Problem in Urban Alaska 10
Reducing Nonpoint Source Pollution with the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund 12
Spodight Shines on North Carolina State University Stream 12
Notes on Watershed Management
Grazing for Change: Ranchers and Environmentalists Save Money
and die Environment 14
Riparian Restoration Improves Water Quality in Vermont's
Champlain Valley 15
Agricultural Notes
Long Creek Watershed Goes to the Source 17
Notes on Education
The Awesome Aquifer Adventure 18
Nutrient-rich Education in Iowa 18
Riparian Event Becomes School-wide Celebration 20
Maine Campaign: Soil Erosion Awareness 22
1+1 = H20 23
Web-based Program Educates Pennsylvania Students 24
Best Management Practices for Storm Water Phase II Menu 24
Reviews and Announcements
Texas Smartscape 24
Watershed Success Stories 25
Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management 25
New Video Explores how TMDLs Keep Our Waters Clean 25
Websites Worth a Bookmark 26
OATEBOOK .
THE COUPON
26
27
All issues of News-Notes are accessible on EPA's website: www.epa.gov/OWOW/info/NewsNotes/index.html
-------
ERA Leading Effort
to Safeguard
Nation's Waters
(continued)
The Mission of EPA's Water Protection Task Force
The Water Protection Task Force works with the states, tribes, utilities, and odier appropriate
partners, focusing on six major areas:
Developing tools- vulnerability assessment methodologies and emergency operations
guidelines.
Offering training for drinking water and wastewater utility managers and operators.
Providing technical and financial assistance- to support enhanced security at utilities.
Supporting information sharing- to provide secure communications on threats and
incidents among utilities, law enforcement, and other relevant parties.
Undertaking research- to improve the information and technologies needed to enhance
security for water and wastewater utilities.
Networking- with a wide variety of organizations with related interests and responsibilities.
Using an information system developed in partnership with the Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies (AMWA) and several odier water organizations, the Task Force sends notices to utilities.
AMWA also uses this system to send out special alerts from the FBI. Early notices have oudined:
Recommended security measures, including working closely widi local law enforcement;
Resources available;
Training offered; and
Advice on monitoring and treatment.
To date, the Task Force has reached hundreds of peoplediose who run the daily operations at drinking
water facilities across die countrythrough training programs with the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) and the AWWA Research Foundation. These programs provide information on
general security practices as well as methods to assess vulnerabilities for drinking water systems.
"We've been working with Sandia National Laboratory for some time to develop a set of tools that
will help large drinking water utilities assess their vulnerability," said Bob Bostock, Assistant to the
Administrator for Homeland Security, adding "so, fortunately, they were able to put this effort on a
fast track to completion." Sandia will provide training to selected firms in the performance of
vulnerability assessment methodology known as Risk Assessment Methodology for Water
Utilities (RAM-WSM). These firms will then be asked to train others who can also assist utilities
with their security planning.
The Agency received a $53 million supplemental appropriation from Congress to improve the safety
and security of die nation's water supply through grants to publicly owned, large drinking water systems.
Collectively, these large systems provide drinking water to nearly half of those Americans served by
public water systems. The grants may be used to support vulnerability assessments, remediation
planning, or emergency plan development. EPA expects to award these grants early this summer.
EPA is also working with die states, tribes, and utility organizations to determine the best methods
for meeting small and medium drinking water and wastewater system needs. EPA will use a
significant portion of FY 2002 funds to provide training, development and distribution of tools,
and technical assistance.
EPA also works closely with the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) and
Water Environment Federation to develop and disseminate tools for wastewater system operators.
AMSA has developed legal and security checklists for large wastewater utilities, and is currently
developing a vulnerability assessment methodology tool.
Through fast-paced, action-oriented partnerships, the Task Force has set an ambitious path for
protecting our nation's water infrastructure. But, as Assistant Administrator Mehan points out, "the
federal government is only one soldier in the batde. Communities across the country need to take
action to protect our water resources and the health, of our citizens."
[For more information, visit the EPA Water Infrastructure Security web site at www.epa.gov/safewater/security.]
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 20102, ISSUE #68
-------
Notes on the National Scene
319 Success Stories Volume HI Released
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Success Stories Volume III describes the successful implementation of
the section 319 Clean "Water Act Nonpoint Source Program. The report provides examples of
solutions to a variety of water quality problems caused by nonpoint source pollution. The report
features approximately two success stories from each state and also includes special sections on
tribal successes, innovative ideas, and noteworthy education and funding projects.
The stories primarily demonstrate water quality improvements, a return to water quality standards,
or other objective evidence of improvement in the water or in the habitat associated with the water.
Many of the stories also document specific pollutant reductions or other measurable improvements
attributed to the 319 project, such as increased shade for temperature-impaired waters and
improved streamside habitat. The stories highlight the range of best management practices,
training programs, and other activities implemented to achieve these successes, as well as the
funding sources and other partners that contributed to the successful project. From FY 1990
through 2001, EPA awarded an aggregate of more than $1.3 billion to states and territories under
section 319. Funds available for grants in FY 2001 alone have increased to more than $237
. million, which is nearly double the FY 1998 appropriation.
The document is now available online at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III.
[For more information, contact Stacie Craddock, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20460. Phone: (202) 260-3788; e-mail: craddock.stacie@epa.gov.]
Taking the TMDL Program to the Public
EPA recendy made great strides toward improving its Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
program. The updated TMDL regulation, published on July 13, 2000, generated lawsuits and
congressional opposition. The controversial regulation, which never went into effect, is now being
reviewed and revised by EPA. During fall 2001, EPA conducted five public meetings to solicit
stakeholder perspectives on key TMDL and related National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) issues. EPA will use the information received at these public listening sessions as
it considers changes to the regulations governing the TMDL program and related areas of the
NPDES program. EPA plans to propose modifications in mid-2002 and hopes to issue a new rule
in spring 2003.
Each of the first four public meetings revolved around a specific theme chosen to help focus the
discussion. "EPA selected the tliemes based on the key issues that they anticipated would be raised
at the meetings," explained Anne Weinberg of EPA's Office of Water. "The themes allowed us to
explore each key issue in depth." The meeting themes included: Implementation of Nonpoint
Source TMDLs (Chicago, IL October 22 and 23); Scope and Content of TMDLs (Sacramento,
CA - November 1 and 2); EPA's Role in TMDLs, the Pace/Schedule for Development of TMDLs,
and NPDES Permitting Pre- and Post-TMDL (Atlanta, GA - November 7 and 8); and Listing
Impaired Waters (Oklahoma City, OK November 15 and 16). At the fifth meeting, in early
December in Washington, DC, EPA provided a summary of the input received at the first four
public meetings and encouraged additional input from the participants.
The meetings generated good will, noted Weinberg. "We had a great turnout between 120 and
300 people joined us at each location. Also, people liked the meeting format. We innovatively used
small groups to focus on specific issues related to each meeting's theme. Each group generally
consisted of no more than 10 people and an EPA facilitator." This format allowed EPA to record
many detailed and comprehensive comments.
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Taking the TMDL
Program to the
Public
(continued)
When asked for feedback on TMDL listing issues, including the timing, scope, list credibility, data
and information, and public review aspects, the participants
generally supported the integration of section 305(b) with section 303(d) lists so that the
lists can be viewed in context of all waters of the state (note: this process is already
underway - see "EPA Issues New Integrated Water Quality Reporting Guidance" on
page 5 for more information);
believed that better/more monitoring data and improvements in water quality standards
are needed as a base for listing decisions;
noted that states' listing methodologies are important;
suggested that longer listing cycles would allow for more focus on TMDL development; and
asked for clearer delisting criteria.
When asked for feedback on nonpoint source TMDL implementation, including issues such as
how to ensure TMDLs are implemented and whether the technical tools, authorities/programs,
and funding sources are available to ensure implementation, the participants
agreed that implementation of TMDLs is important; however, attendees were divided
about whether to require implementation plans as part of TMDLs;
believed that TMDL implementation should be locally driven; and
identified the gaps limiting effective implementation as (1) financial resources;
(2) coordination between EPA and other agencies; (3) public participation, outreach, and
need for information and education at the local level; and (4) monitoring and data.
When asked for feedback on the scope and content of TMDLs, including issues such as how to
encourage stakeholder involvement in the allocation process and whether TMDLs are appropriate
for all impaired waters and pollutants, the participants
provided mixed feedback on how specific TMDLs should be (e.g., gross allocations for
point and nonpoint sources versus more specific allocations);
believed that EPA should allow for different types of analyses for different types of TMDLs;
expressed a need for equity between point sources and nonpoint sources in TMDLs;
asked for EPA to allow flexibility in TMDLs as knowledge/local conditions change
(adaptive management); and
said that they need more state funding for TMDL development.
When asked for feedback on EPA's role in TMDL development, including issues such as how EPA
can most effectively support and ensure state TMDL development and what EPA should do in
response to states' action or inaction, the participants
agreed that EPA has an important oversight role;
believed that EPA should participate in interstate watershed TMDL development more
actively than in watersheds that are wholly within a single state (to serve as a consistent
information resource and mediator for the numerous parties involved in interstate water
issues);
said that 30 days is not long enough for EPA's review of lists and TMDLs;
noted that reasonable assurance is a critical issue; and
recommended that states implement a rotating basin cycle for permitting and other water
quality management activities.
The public also offered feedback on other aspects of the TMDL program. They noted that:
There is a need to account for existing federal, state, and local programs that serve the
same functions.
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 2002, ISSUE #611
-------
Taking tine TMDL EPA and states should encourage development of TMDLs by third parties.
Program to the , , , , ,
Public * y genera"7 support the watershed approach.
(continued) EPA needs to provide more guidance on a variety of issues including TMDL development,
NPDES/TMDL issues, and pollutant trading.
TMDLs are necessary but should not drive out other important work.
To view more comprehensive summaries from the meetings or for more information about the
TMDL program, visit EPA's TMDL web site at www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl.
[For more information, contact Anne Weinberg, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Watershed Branch (4503T),
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 566-1217; e-mail:
weinberg.anne@epa.gov.]
EPA Issues New Integrated Water Quality Reporting Guidance
In November 2001 EPA issued the final 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
Report Guidance, which affects the way states, territories, and authorized tribes report their water
quality information. The guidance recommends an "Integrated Report" that will satisfy Clean
Water Act requirements for both section 305 (b) water quality reports (summarizes the state's water
quality data for monitored waterbody segments) and section 303 (d) impaired waters (TMDL) lists
(identifies the state's waterbody segments that do not meet water quality standards and explains
why). The objectives of this guidance are to help states, territories, and authorized tribes strengthen
monitoring programs, encourage timely monitoring to support decision making, monitor increased
numbers of waters, and provide a full accounting of all waters and uses. It encourages a rotating
basin approach, strengthens assessment methodologies, and will lead to improved public
confidence in assessments and lists.
Integrated Reports will include the following information:
Delineation of water quality assessment units (AUs) based on the National Hydrography
Dataset.
Status of and progress toward achieving comprehensive assessments of all waters.
Water quality standard attainment status for every AU.
Basis for the water quality standard attainment determinations for every AU.
Additional monitoring that may be needed to determine water quality standard attainment
status and, if necessary, to support development of TMDLs for each pollutant/AU
combination.
Schedules for additional monitoring planned for AUs.
Pollutant/AU combinations still requiring TMDLs.
TMDL development schedules reflecting the priority ranking of each pollutant/AU
combination.
With the exception of the monitoring schedules and the delineation of assessment units, all of the
data and information needed to support the Integrated Report was requested in guidance for earlier
305 (b) reports and 303 (d) lists. The data and information will simply be conveyed in a different
manner in the 2002 Integrated Report.
To allow states, territories, and authorized tribes time to incorporate some or all of the
recommendations suggested in its new guidance, EPA issued a rule on October 18, 2001 that
delays the submission date of 2002 303(d) lists by 6 months to October 1, 2002. For a copy of the
2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance, visit
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/policy.html.
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
T^sia
New Reporting Requirements for
Section 319 Grants
On September 27, 2001, EPA announced the final changes
to reporting requirements for nonpoint source grants under
section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Effective in fiscal year
2002, the new data to be reported reflects a year and a
half of deliberations by the Results Work Group, one of the
seven State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership groups
formed by EPA and the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators to improve the
quality of nonpoint source programs nationally (see
News-Notes #63 for more information on the work groups).
EPA currently plans to upgrade its computer tracking
system this summer to enable new data entry. The
information will also be available to the public.
The most significant newly required reporting elements
include:
A More precisely geolocating section 319 projects,
enabling projects to be linked to information from
section 303(d) and other programs, and allowing
tracking of water quality improvements.
* Reporting, where applicable, load reductions for
nutrients and sediment.
A Reporting, where applicable, acres of wetlands
restored and created and feet of streambank
protected and stabilized,
4 Providing a cost breakdown by main source category
after project closeout.
* Providing a full description of each project.
The announcement and more detailed changes are
available online at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
Section319/grts.html. For more information, contact Romell
Nandi, U.S. EPA, (4503T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 566-1203; e-mail:
nandi.romell@epa.gov.
Stakeholders Have Their Say
Want to know what others are doing to manage their watersheds? Be sure to read EPA's new
document Protecting and Restoring America's Watersheds: Status, Trends, and Initiatives in Watershed
Management. The document highlights successful projects, programs, and coordination efforts
recently implemented across the country by diverse watershed stakeholders. It presents selected case
studies and evaluates programs and partnerships representative of the ongoing national effort to
encourage adoption of the watershed management approach. It also highlights the need for
improvement in several watershed management program areas including development and
maintenance of partnerships, evaluations of project success, efforts to monitor and perform
assessments of watersheds, and coordination between government agencies.
One case study highlights a successful watershed management project in the Blackfoot River
watershed in Montana, where stakeholders designed a comprehensive collection of watershed
education and awareness programs. The Blackfoot Challenge, a grassroots organization, uses this
information to sponsor teacher education programs that demonstrate how teachers can blend
watershed resource education activities into their existing curricula. The organization also hosts
workshops on weed management and alternative ranch income (e.g., ecotourism and guest
ranching) for private landowners in the watershed. Wildlife management experts hold meetings
about threatened and endangered species in the watershed such as grizzly bears, wolves, bull trout,
and west slope cutthroat trout. These education programs have helped change land-use habits in
the watershed and improve watershed health.
The report also highlights a section 319 funded grassland enhancement project in New Mexico
where a partnership is working to preserve native species threatened by habitat modification. Valle
Grande Grass Bank provides the opportunity to rehabilitate intensely used rangelands in northern
New Mexico. Managed by The Conservation Fund, a nonprofit organization, in partnership with
ranchers, environmentalists, and Forest Service personnel, the Grass Bank provides alternative
grazing lands so that ranchers can rest and restore their home pastures. Ranchers deliver their cows
to the Grass Bank and plant their overused lands with desired vegetation. Ranchers usually
participate in the Grass Bank for several growing seasons to allow the new vegetation to become
established and resilient.
The report categorizes case studies, program descriptions, and feedback from multiple stakeholders
based on the watershed framework, including the watershed approach, local citizen leadership and
active support, and state and federal support and coordination.
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 2002, ISSUE #63
-------
Stakeholders Have
Their Say
(continued)
[To view the report online, visit www.epa.gov/owow/protecting. To order hard copies, contact the EPA
National Service Center for Environmental Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419;
Phone: (800) 490-9198; fax: (513) 489-8695; e-mail: ncepimal@one.net]
Attention on Deck: Control NFS from Marinas and Recreational Boating
EPA recently released the final version of the National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint
Source Pollution from Marinas and Recreational Boating. Available online at
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/mmsp/index.html, the document provides technical assistance to state
program managers and others, such as marina managers, on the best practical means of reducing
nonpoint source pollution of surface waters from marinas and recreational boating. The guidance
provides background information on the nature and causes of pollution from marinas and
recreational boating as well as technical information about how to reduce that pollution.
Choppy Water Ahead: Pollution Problems
The pollutants that might be generated at a marina and by recreational boats include nutrients and
pathogens (from pet waste, overboard sewage discharge, and leaky marina septic systems), sediments
(from parking lot runoff and shoreline erosion), waste from fish cleaning (flesh, blood, and bones),
petroleum hydrocarbons (from fuel and oil drippings and spills, and from solvents), toxic metals
(from antifoulants and hull and boat maintenance debris), and liquid and solid wastes (from engine
and hull maintenance and general marina activities). Marina construction and reconstruction,
in-water modifications at marinas, and propeller wash and boat wakes can also destroy aquatic
habitats and disturb plants and animals. Water quality in a marina often reflects not only nonpoint
source pollutants generated at the marina but also a cumulative load of pollutants from several
watershed sources. When marinas are poorly planned or managed, they may pose a threat to adjacent
lakes and oceans, which are the end point of watershed runoff.
Navigating the Waters: Promoting Pollution Prevention
In the new guidance, EPA identifies 15 management measures that can help reduce or prevent
nonpoint source pollution from marinas and recreational boating. Management measures include
marina flushing, water quality assessment, habitat assessment, shoreline and streambank
stabilization, storm water runoff control, and more.
The document describes each management measure and the best management practices (BMPs)
that can be used to achieve success. Each management measure discussion concludes with a table
restating the management measure and summarizing environmental concerns that the management
measure addresses, BMPs applicable to the management measure, and information pertinent to
implementation of each BMP. Each table provides detailed BMP information, including:
Suggested location for the BMP in a marina and the purpose for its use;
Expected benefits for marina owners and operators and boat owners;
Expected environmental benefits;
Cost estimate for initial installation of the BMP (e.g., a structural BMP) or establishment
of the practice (e.g., a recycling program);
Cost estimate for ongoing use or maintenance of the BMPs.
Ahoy: What's In It for Marinas?
Marinas, though not usually a major contributor of pollution to our nation's rivers, lakes, and
estuaries, can have a large local impact because they are recreational centers. Implementation of
management measures can help protect local water quality and public health in swimming and
recreational areas around the marina. Implementation also makes sense economically: customers are
happier if the marina is well-managed and the water and associated land are clean.
The current guidance modifies and expands upon the chapter "National Management Measures to
Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Marinas and Recreational Boating" in EPA's Guidance
Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. The 1993
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Attention on Deck: guidance, published under section 6217 of CZARA, applied only to coastal marine waters. The
Control NFS from revised guidance reflects circumstances relevant to differing inland freshwater conditions and
Marinas and provides the most up-to-date technical information available. It does not set new or additional
Recreational Boating standards for state nonpoint source management programs under section 319 of the Clean Water
(COntinueaj ^^ or sectjon 5217 Of CZARA. This new guidance is one of a set of management measure
documents based on the original'chapters in the 1993 guidance. Single hard copies are available
through the NSCEP by calling (513) 891-6561; ask for publication EPA 841-B-01-005.
[For more information contact Ed Drabkowski, U.S. EPA, (4503T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 566-1198; e-mail: drabkowski.ed@epa.gov.]
State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership Forum
The State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership Forum, November 27-29, 2001, in New Orleans,
Louisiana, hosted more than 100 state and EPA NPS professionals as well as state coastal nonpoint
source program staff who also met that week. The meeting served as a forum for strengthening the
state/federal NPS partnership, sharing innovative approaches, and developing a strategic plan to
enhance program integration when resolving NPS issues in impaired waters.
In the Beginning
The State/EPA NPS Management Partnership, formed in April 2000, originated from a previous
national nonpoint source meeting sponsored jointly by the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) and EPA (see News-Notes #63, December
2000). Over the past two years, the seven Partnership workgroups have refined and implemented
specific action items to address priority NPS problems. The workgroups covered watershed
planning and implementation, rural nonpoint sources, urban nonpoint sources, nonpoint source
grants management, nonpoint source capacity building and funding, information and outreach,
and nonpoint source results. The priority issues of each workgroup led to the development of the
agenda for the Partnership Forum meeting.
During the Meeting
The opening session featured Kerry St. Pe, Executive Director of the Barataria Terrebone Estuary
Program, who reminded the group that approximately two-thirds of the United States drains into
this Louisiana estuary (which includes the mouth of the Mississippi River) and stressed the
necessity for interstate cooperation for addressing nonpoint source issues across the country. Chuck
Sutfin, EPA Assessment and Watershed Protection Division Director and the Partnership co-chair,
led a discussion on strategic directions of the nonpoint source program, emphasizing the increase
in resources devoted to developing and implementing watershed plans addressing nonpoint
sources, particularly priority waterbodies and on-the-ground implementation. Jeff Loser, National
Leader for Clean Water Programs at USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, highlighted
the role of the Farm Bill in providing assistance to implement Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) and addressing animal feeding operation problems.
Other sessions addressed various nonpoint source issues, including:
Examining the relationship of TMDLs to watershed planning and Clean Water Act
section 319;
Learning from the nonpoint management successes experienced by the coastal nonpoint
program such as continuation of strong stakeholder partnerships, use of available funding,
and use of outreach and education programs; and
Introducing social marketing as a powerful tool for behavior change and analyzing how
other high profile public education campaigns succeeded in making a difference through
marketing (e.g., anti-smoking, seat belt promotion).
Throughout the Forum session participants presented a number of state and local case studies that
highlighted successful approaches to NPS management. The audience learned about making the
8
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 2002, ISSUE #68
-------
. State/EPA Nonpoint
Source Partnership
Forum
(continued)
best use of state revolving funds for nonpoint sources, documenting water quality improvements in
watershed implementation projects, finding better ways to monitor and measure environmental
results, addressing urban runoff, and implementing successful restoration projects.
In addition to attending general sessions, individual workgroups met separately to assess
accomplishments, confirm existing action items, and develop new agenda items. The workgroups'
plans for the upcoming year are ambitious but attainable. The Outreach Workgroup plans to
continue exploring approaches for a national media campaign and will work on strengthening its
partnerships in the upcoming year. The Rural Workgroup plans to continue developing NFS
related tools for managing Animal Feeding Operations and promoting innovative BMPs for rural
areas (including better targeting of practices in critical areas), and the Urban Workgroup is
planning an urban runoff training program. The Results Workgroup will strive to provide direction
to states on useful monitoring techniques for better targeting, tracking, and reporting results to the
public.
The Capacity Building and Funding Workgroup announced the completion of the Capacity
Building web site (www.epa.gov/owow/nps/capacity/index.htm) and will soon plan for a national
conference showcasing successful efforts at building local capacity. They also discussed social issues,
prevention of water quality problems, and adding flexibility to 319 grant guidance as new items to
be considered for action by one or more of the workgroups. The Watershed Planning and
Implementation Workgroup will continue exploring program integration issues and the
relationship between TMDLs and watershed planning, and the Grants Management Workgroup
plans to continue work on a 319 Grants Manual and facilitation of discussion on the 319
guidance. All workgroup plans are currently being updated and will be publicly available on the
Internet at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/partnership.html and www.asiwpca.org/programs/nps.htm.
Watershed Planning and Implementation Workgroup:
Fred Suffian, ERA Region 3, (215) 814-5753; or
Jill Reinhart, Indiana DEM, (317) 233-8803.
ป Rural Nonpoint Sources Workgroup: : .
Stuart Lehman, EPA HQ, (202) 566-1205; or
Brian Lovett, Wyoming DEQ, (307) 777-5622. .
ซ Urban Nonpoint Sources Workgroup:
Donna Somboonlakana, EPA Region 2, (212) 637-3700; or .
Liz Sempler, New Jersey DEP, (609)633-1349. - .
Nonpoint Source Grants Management Workgroup:
Audrey Shileikis, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-3459; or
Norm Marcotte, Maine DEP, (207) 287-7727.
ซ Nonpoint Source Capacity Building and Funding Workgroup:
Mark Nuhfer, EPA Region 4, (404) 562-9390; or
Jim Riordan, Rhode island DEM, (401) 222-4700, ext. 4421.
Information Transfer and Outreach Workgroup:
Stacie Craddock, EPA HQ, (202) 566-1204; or
Jack Wilbur, Utah Department of Agriculture and" Food, (801)
538-7098, : : - , .-'.-'
ป Nonpoint Source Results Workgroup:
Romell Nandi, EPA HQ, (202)566-1203. '-.'..-...
ซ Monitoring Workgroup:
Tom Davenport, EPA Region 5, (312) 886-0209.
Down the Road
The final plenary session recapped the workgroups'
future agenda items and identified potential key
priorities for the upcoming year. Participants identified
the need to focus more on integrating various federal
and state programs to support watershed protection
efforts, social issues, and demographics and statistical
analysis. Finally, they identified a need to establish a
Monitoring Workgroup to focus on enhancing states'
NPS monitoring efforts. Though there are varying
levels of NPS monitoring (statewide, watershed, and
practice effectiveness), the Workgroup's first priority
will be watershed level monitoring to improve the
section 319 reporting process. The Partnership hopes to
continue strengthening the success of the NPS
program.
Many of the Forum presentations can also be found
through ASIWPCA's web site. Those presentations
related to NPS and TMDLs can also be found at
www.tmdls.net, under Tips and Tools (proceedings).
For further information about specific workgroup
activities, or to join a workgroup as a state program
representative, contact the individual workgroup
co-chair shown in the box to the left.
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
America Celebrates Wetlands Month
The nation celebrated American "Wetlands Month throughout May. This year's campaign focused
on protecting some of the nation's more unique wetlands. EPA, the Izaak "Walton League, other
federal and local agencies, and nonprofit groups scheduled activities around the country. See
www.iwla.org/sos/awm/events for the calendar of nationwide events.
Activities kicked off with an EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5K Run and 2K Walk on May
4 in Arlington, Virginia, to help fund the restoration of a local wetland. Additional activities
planned on the Mall in Washington, DC included a National Park Service fair on May 3 and 4 and
a family fair on May 18 at the U.S. Botanic Gardens. On May 16, the Environmental Law
Institute, EPA, and other federal agencies honored the winners of the annual National Wetland
Awards. The awards honor individuals who have made an innovative effort for wetland
conservation, research, or educational projects at the local, regional, or state level. Winning photos
from EPA's first Wetlands Photo Contest was also on display.
Over half of the nation's original wetlands have Been lost or converted to other uses, with the rate
of loss declining dramatically over the last 30 years. EPA strives to achieve no net loss of wetlands
and to move toward an annual net gain through restoration. Visit www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands for
additional information on wetlands.
News from States, Tribes, and Localities
Uncovering a Pollution Problem In Urban Alaska
Winter is finally coming to a close in Anchorage, Alaska, and the smell of springtime is in the air.
Ah sniff. wait a minute....that smells like ....dog poop. Yes, Anchorage residents face that
unfortunate event every April. If people don't pick up after their dogs, an entire winters worth of
accumulated poop can appear once the snow melts. The poop is not only aesthetically unpleasing,,
but it also poses a risk to human health on land and in local waterways. Fortunately, a local
environmental organization has stepped forward to help educate the public about the problem and
to encourage people to pick up after their pets.
The Scoop on the Poop Problem
Large amounts of dog poop disappear into the winter snow unnoticed until spring. According
to a local nonprofit environmental organization, the Anchorage Waterways Council (Council),
about 50,000 dogs call Anchorage home. A typical dog deposits three quarters of a pound of waste
per day, which translates into about 37,500 pounds, or 19 tons of dog waste each day. An average
of 70 inches of snow fall on Anchorage, beginning in early October and continuing through March
or early April. Very little of the snow melts once it falls. If dog poop is not picked up, the deep
snow contains many layers of poop by April. When snow melts over a period of about two weeks,
the accumulated dog poop is exposed and can be washed into nearby waterways. In fact, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation classified eight creeks and four lakes in Anchorage as
impaired, probably caused in large part by dog feces.
The Poop Solution
Each April the Council organizes a week-long "Scoop the Poop" campaign. The campaign explains
how poop can become a problem and encourages people to pick up after their pets year-round.
The Council also asks teams of volunteers to choose a public site, such as a trail or park area, to
clean sometime during the week of the campaign. To keep track of the areas that still need to be
cleaned, the Council asks the teams to register prior to their clean-up day. People use their own
paper or plastic bags for the clean-up and place them in or next to public trash cans. Typically,
participants include teams from churches, civic groups, and dog-related clubs and professions. "We
keep the event itself low-key. We've tried many different tactics over the years, including weighing
10
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 2002, ISSUE #63
-------
Uncovering a
Pollution Problem in
Urban Alaska
(continued)
the collected poop and holding a "Scoop the Poop" festival, but it never seemed appropriate,"
explained Catherine Moncrieff, Outreach Director with the Council.
Getting the Word Out
Each spring the Council relies on radio PSAs, newspaper articles, and spots on television news
programs to announce the campaign, educate people about the issues, and attract participation.
"The media love the "Scoop the Poop" campaign because it can be made humorous there are so
many plays on words available," remarked MoncriefF. "We don't have problems getting media
coverage." And every year we get more interest last year 21 teams signed up. We believe that
about 10 additional teams forgot to register," explained MoncriefF. "We know that what we
actually pick up each year is a tiny fraction of what is out there, but we are building an ethic in the
community which is what is most important."
The campaign's public education campaign has also been working. "There is definitely less poop
out there than there used to be," noted Moncrieff". "Thanks to all the attention our campaign has
gotten, more people are aware of the problem. We find that people patrol each other if someone
notices that their neighbor has not picked up after their dog they will say something. Also, the
streets and trails are cleaner to begin with people feel guilty leaving pet waste in an otherwise
clean area."
Where it All Began
The City of Anchorage originally developed the idea in the early 1990s. At that time, the poop
problem "was simply gross," noted Moncrieff. "Poop would be scattered all over the public trails,
keeping people away during the time of year when they really wanted to get outside." Anchorage
has a law requiring people to pick up after dieir pets, but "it has been difficult to enforce,"
explained MoncriefF. Public concern and outrage about the poop-laden public areas led the city to
begin organizing annual poop clean-up days in partnership with the Council and other groups.
Each year the event gained momentum.
In the mid-1990s the Council began receiving Clean Water Act section 319 funds annually from
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to support its efforts to clean Anchorage's
waterways. At that time, the city asked the Council to assume the lead role in the Scoop the Poop
project. Since then the Council has worked closely with diverse groups to implement the
campaign, including the City's Parks and Beautification department, water quality agencies such as
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the City's Watershed Management
Section, the Anchorage Soil and Water Conservation District and
Alaska Cooperative Extension, and many dog groups, such as Friends
of Pets, Anchorage Dog Owners Group, the Skijour Club, the
Retriever Club of Alaska, and Anchorage Animal Control. The only
cost associated with the campaign is the Council's staff time, which is
funded in large part by section 319 funds.
I The Anchorage Waterways Council has
incorporated the Scoop the Poop project
|-;into itsiClean vyaterways; Campaign .
(CWC), a community-based effort to
educate the public on ways they can
reduce their impact on water quality.
Council staff members work with
community representatives to organize
committees to tackle water quality issues.
|-= in addition to the Scoop the Poop effort,
_the Council pjansjojdevelop CWC_ _ _____
"~~cerfimittees to address goose
overpopulation (due in part to the public
feeding the birds), disposal of household
hazardous wastes, proper use of
pesticides, herbicides and .fertilizers, and
_ot_h_er water-related..activities_ in Anchorage.
"We are currently looking to increase the visibility of the public
education campaign," said MoncriefF. The Council plans to work with
business owners to encourage them to permanently adopt the area
outside their places of business. They also hope to encourage dog food
companies to include information about picking up pet waste on their
dog food bags. Finally, they are trying to secure funding to develop a
short video about the "Scoop the Poop" campaign that television
stations can air year-round.
[For more information contact Catherine Moncrieff, Outreach Director,
Anchorage Waterways Council, Anchorage Waterways Council, P.O. Box
241774, Anchorage, AK 99524-1774. Phone: (907) 277-9287; e-mail:
cmoncrie@pobox. alaska. net; Internet: www. anchwaterwayscouncil. org.]
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
11
-------
Reducing Nonpoint Source Pollution with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Since its inception as part of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program has made impressive progress in funding wastewater
treatment, estuary protection, and nonpoint source pollution control projects. Established to help
address growing needs for general water pollution control funding, the CWSRF succeeded the
Construction Grants Program, a direct grant program for funding wastewater treatment projects.
Although initially used primarily for municipal wastewater treatment projects, the CWSRF
continues to expand as a nonpoint source control tool in many states.
Under the CWSRF program, EPA provides grants or "seed money" to the 50 states and Puerto
Rico for their individual CWSRFs. The program is managed by the state, and loans or other types
of assistance for water quality projects are distributed according to each state's programs and
priorities. As loans are repaid, the state reuses those funds for additional project loans. States work
to reach a broad set of borrowers, including communities, farmers, homeowners, nonprofit
organizations, and others to ensure efficient use of CWSRF funds. With more than 9,500 projects
funded and more than $30 billion in cumulative assistance provided, the CWSRF stands today as
one of the nations most successful environmental financing programs.
Nonpoint Progress
To date, 28 CWSRF programs have funded more than $1.2 billion in NPS pollution control and
estuary protection projects, most of them over the past five years. Projects focusing on NPS
pollution include decentralized wastewater treatment, storm water management, wetlands/riparian
zone protection, agricultural BMPs, and underground storage tank and soil remediation.
One of those successful programs is in the State of Washington. Washington used the CWSRF to
address its problem with failing on-site sewage disposal systems, loaning $5.5 million to replace
more than 360 septic systems (as of 2001). According to the Washington Department of Ecology,
approximately 15 percent of Washington's 650,000 on-site sewer systems do not properly treat
wastewater discharge. On-site system failures pose a potential health hazard because domestic
wastewater can contain bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasites harmful to people. Buildup of
aquatic weeds or algae in lakes or ponds adjacent to homes may also occur. These failures threaten
entire watersheds, affecting groundwater, streams, lakes, and estuaries.
Since 1990, 10 counties in Washington have used the CWSRF to create local loan programs that
help residents and small businesses pay for needed repairs and upgrades of faulty on-site sewage
disposal systems. Most of these loan programs, administered by health agencies, apply for loan
funding through the Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Financial Assistance
Program. For more information, contact Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality
Program at (360) 407-6400, or visit www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/funding.
[For more information on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, call the EPA National Center for
Environmental Publications and Information at (800) 490-9198, and request a copy o/The Clean Water
State Revolving Fund: Financing America's Environmental Infrastructure -A Report of Progress (EPA
832-95-R-001), orviewCWSRFprogramfactsheetsatwww.epa.gov/owm/finan.htm.]
Spotlight Shines on North Carolina State University Stream
The Rocky Branch Creek, long neglected and hidden beneath the pavement of the North Carolina
State University (NCSU) campus, is finally seeing the light of day. Sections of the stream that were
once confined by culverts, riprap, and gabions now course through meanders, riffles, pools, and
wetlands in a restored floodplain. Exotic plants that once obscured the stream have been replaced
by native plants that enhance the stream and provide food and shelter for birds and other wildlife.
A new greenway path along the stream gives pedestrians the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy
Rocky Branch's new found vitality.
12
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 2002, ISSUE #68
-------
Spoffight Shines on
North Carolina State
University Stream
(continued)
These dramatic improvements can be attributed to a three-phase stream restoration p/an initiated
by NCSU in May 2001. NCSU hopes the plan will reverse the stream degradation caused by
decades of nonpoint source impacts and strip Rocky Branch of its designation as the most polluted
stream in the state. Along the way, the project will serve as a demonstration site for water quality
professionals and the 34,000 students, faculty, and staff at NCSU. It will also educate the general
public about urban stream protection and restoration.
The square-mile area of NCSU property covered by the restoration plan constitutes most of the
Rocky Branch watershed. Predominantly urban, this area contains the associated impervious
surfaces such as paved streets with curbs and gutters, expansive asphalt parking lots, sprawling
athletic facilities with synthetic pkying surfaces, and rooftops of scores of buildings. When it rains,
such designs increase the amount and velocity of stormwater runoff and facilitate the transport of
nonpoint source contaminants to Rocky Branch. Over time, these flashy, erosive flows have
drastically altered the shape and dimensions of the channel, undercutting banks and toppling trees
into the stream. Large volumes of sediment traveling to downstream waterways and seasonal algal
blooms further degrade the stream's water quality.
Beginning the Restoration Process
As a first step in the restoration plan, NCSU restored nearly half of the 6,100 linear feet of stream
channel flowing across the campus, relocating 1,100 feet of sewer lines, removing 7,100 square feet
of parking lot, and improving several road-crossing culverts to allow high stream flows to spill to
the floodplain. To reduce stream bank erosion, NCSU installed rock and log vanes, single-arm
structures partially embedded in the bank that provide grade control and reduce pressure on banks
during storms. Finally, NCSU used energy dissipaters to reduce erosion at stormwater outfalls and
stabilized critical areas of the stream bank with natural materials such as rootwads, logs, and willow
branches.
For the riparian buffer, NCSU selected a variety of floodplain, slope, and upland native plants.
River birch, ironwood, flowering dogwood, spicebush, and sycamore were used for the floodplain;
yellow poplar, redbud, hickory, green ash, northern red oak, serviceberry, and sourwood for the
slope; and oaks for the upland. Once established, the trees and shrubs will form a canopy to shade
the creek and protect temperature-sensitive macroinvertebrates and other aquatic organisms.
Realizing the Benefits Beyond the Campus
Adjacent to the restored riparian area, NCSU developed a new greenway path that connects the
campus to the existing City of Raleigh greenway system, expanding the network of public green
space throughout the city. The path serves as another campus access point while also increasing the
public's awareness of the creek and its surroundings. NCSU plans to install interpretative signs
along the greenway path to explain the concepts of natural channel design and to identify the flora
and fauna.
Future Plans
During Phase II and III of the project, NCSU plans to further improve water quality in the creek
by installing a stormwater pond and three bioretention areas (rain gardens) to intercept, detain,
and filter runoff from roads and parking lots before it reaches the creek. Once completed, the
restoration project will demonstrate how storm water controls and riparian restoration can improve
the health of an urban stream. NCSU hopes the newly spotlighted stream will cultivate a sense of
stewardship and pride in the creek for its aesthetic and ecological values.
[For more information, contact Barbara Doll, P.E., Box 8605, NC State University, Raleigh, NC 27695.
Phone (919) 515-5287; e-mail barbara_doil@ncsu.edu.]
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
13
-------
Notes on Watershed Management
Grazing for Change: Implementing Environmentally Sensitive and
Economically Viable Grazing Programs
Balancing environmental protection with economic growth can be an intimidating endeavor. But
some California ranchers and environmentalists are working together to achieve that balance by
implementing innovative grazing practices that are both environmentally sensitive and
economically viable. A booklet called Grazing for Change highlights these efforts
(www.calcatdemen.org/GC.htm).
Published by the California Cattlemen's Association and the High Sierra Resource Conservation
and Development Council, the booklet had support from the USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Services (NRCS) Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the EPA, and the
Livestock Memorial Fund.
The booklet features nine ranchers and their successful range and watershed management
strategies. A steering committee representing the diversity of California's interests nominated the
ranches featured in the booklet. "The individuals selected to be on the steering committee were
chosen because they were open-minded and unbiased about grazing issues, contributed diverse
perspectives, and were knowledgeable about rangeland issues," says Dan Macon, coordinator of the
High Sierra Resource Conservation and Development Council. The individuals represented diverse
groups, including the Cattlemen's Association, Humboldt State University, USDA NRCS,
University of California, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Sierra Nevada Alliance, California
Farm Bureau Federation, the Nature Conservancy, EPA, California Association of Resource
Conservation Districts, California Rangeland Trust, "Wildlife Conservation Board, private
individuals, and several agricultural and environmental groups.
Spreading the Word
Case studies in Grazing for Change highlight practices and strategies that could easily be embraced
by ranchers around California. For example, the landowners in Bridgeport Valley have teamed up
with the Bridgeport Valley Ranchers Organization to develop an extensive water quality program
that evaluates their efforts to implement rangeland water quality management plans. These plans
typically include irrigation ditch and fencing repair, streambank stabilization, and the use of fire
and weed control to enhance vegetation. By encouraging farmers to implement their plans, the
self-monitoring program documents the efforts to protect waterways such as the Bridgeport
Reservoir and the East "Walker River, which are home to migratory duck species and internationally
recognized as blue ribbon trout waters. To date, monitoring results indicate improved water
quality.
The booklet also features the Nature Conservancy's (TNC) effort to monitor grasslands at its Vina
Plains Preserve. By monitoring for both species composition and the amount of matter remaining
after the grazing season ends, TNC hopes "to show that grassland can be managed for both '
livestock production and endangered species," explains TNC's Rich Reiner. TNC's monitoring
results are used as part of an "adaptive management strategy" to annually adjust the Preserve's
management. Monitoring to date shows a reduction in weeds, an increase in native plants, and
higher forage protein in grazed and periodically burned pastures.
Other case studies feature ranchers that implemented various innovative grazing practices such as
ofFstream rotational grazing, water development, brush and woody vegetation control and removal,
implementation of rangeland water quality management plans and other management plans,
riparian and native perennial grass restoration, controlled burning programs, and conservation
easements. These practices increase riparian vegetation and mitigate watershed problems such as
erosion, competition by invasive nonnative plant species, and poor water quality.
14
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 2002, ISSUE #68
-------
Grazing for Change:
Implementing
Environmentally
Sensitive and
Economically Viable
Grazing Programs
(continued)
Expanding Beyond California's Borders
Other ranching states such as Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Oregon are also using
Grazing for Change in their outreach programs. By sharing these examples of how ranching
operations can work with multidisciplinary partners to meet environmental and economic goals,
these states hope to realize the same success as the California ranchers.
[For more information, contact Dan Macon, High Sierra Resource Conservation and Development
Council, 251 Auburn Ravine, #105, Auburn, CA 95603. Phone: (530) 823-5687x115; e-mail:
dan.macon@ca.usda.gov.]
Riparian Restoration Improves Water Quality in Vermont's Champlain Valley
Vermont's Lake Champlain is cleaner today, thanks to the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and EPA's section 319 National Monitoring Program (NMP). The Lake
Champlain Basin Agricultural Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project was one
of 23 special nonpoint source pollution control monitoring studies conducted across the nation in
EPA's NMP. The project was designed to evaluate how effectively riparian zone restoration practices
could reduce the concentrations and loads of nutrients, sediment, and bacteria from grazing land.
Over the course of the project, federal, state, and local funding totaled more than $1.7 million.
Completed in 2001, the 7-year project has demonstrated that implementation of simple and
inexpensive pollution control measures can yield significant improvements in water quality.
Turning to the NMP for Help
The project was initiated in the early 1990s because of concerns about water quality impacts from
agricultural land in the Lake Champlain basin. At that time, DEC's water quality monitoring data
revealed that Lake Champlain consistently failed to meet Vermont's water quality standards for
phosphorus, largely because of agricultural runoff. In addition, water quality data from the
Missisquoi River, a tributary of Lake Champlain, showed high levels of phosphorus, bacteria, and
organic matter, also from agricultural sources. Project investigators identified livestock access to
streams as a significant source of this pollution and designed the project to address it. Intensive
physical, chemical, and biological water quality monitoring recorded changes in a paired-watershed
design. Project staff also tracked land use and agricultural management activity through landowner
record-keeping, aerial photography, and direct observation.
The primary goals of the Lake Champlain project were the same as for all of EPA's NMP projects:
(1) to evaluate the effectiveness of NFS pollution control technologies; and (2) to improve
scientists' understanding of NPS pollution. Staff monitored water quality for three years prior to
BMP implementation to establish baseline data. This was followed by one year of BMP
implementation and then another three years of monitoring.
Treating the Problem
In 1997, after three years of pre-treatment monitoring, project staff spent one year helping farmers
install treatment measures along selected agricultural sections of two Missisquoi River tributaries. A
third control stream was monitored but not treated. To keep costs low in the two treated streams, the
staff chose to implement inexpensive riparian restoration measures such as livestock exclusion,
riparian restoration, and bioengineered streambank protection. Treatment areas were selected through
baseline farm inventories, direct inspection of streams and riparian areas, and interpretation of aerial
video imagery. Treatment measures were designed and funded with assistance from the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and EPA.
The combined efforts by participants removed cows from the streams and restored approximately
30 to 50 percent of pasture riparian zones in the treatment watersheds. On one farm, project staff
built a new bridge to allow cows to cross into the pasture without walking through the stream; on
another farm, a culvert was installed under a livestock travel lane to re-route water flow away from
the cattle. On many other farms, local volunteer groups, landowners, and project staff installed
new fencing or relocated existing fencing to areas where livestock should be excluded, constructed
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
15
-------
Riparian Restoration
Improves Water
Quality in Vermont's
Champlain Valley
(continued)
livestock watering systems, and applied bioengineering measures like tree revetments and willow
planting along streambanks to protect eroded areas. Protection of the riparian areas allowed growth
of natural vegetation along the stream. The cost of these treatments totaled approximately $40,000
in the two treated watersheds.
Rapid Recovery
During the three years after BMP installation, streambanks healed dramatically and sections of the
streams became narrow and deeper, offering better habitat for fish and other stream life. Growth of
grasses, shrubs, and willows in the stream buffer increased after grazing pressure was removed.
Areas where cows had trampled the banks and muddied the stream bottom stabilized quickly.
Project staff monitored the treated and untreated watersheds through November 2000. Data from
the untreated control watershed helped account for the year-to-year variations in weather. In the
first treated watershed, project staff found that average phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment levels
in the stream decreased by 12 to 34 percent, and E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria counts dropped
by 30 to 40 percent compared to pre-treatment levels. Phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment export
from the watershed decreased 30 to 50 percent. The stream protection kept nearly 1 ton of
phosphorus, 2 tons of nitrogen, and 126 tons of sediment out of the water each year. These
changes, combined with the narrower and deeper stream, led to improvements in the
macroinvertebrate community as well.
Results were less dramatic in the second treated watershed. Nutrients, sediment, and bacteria
declined significantly during the first two years of treatment (1998-1999), but these improvements
were overwhelmed in 2000 by severe erosion and concentrated polluted runoff from a
non-cooperating landowner upstream of the treated area. This incidence of water quality
deterioration despite riparian treatment emphasizes that researchers should monitor land use over
the entire watershed and not just in the study areas.
Landowners Rise to the Occasion
Landowners participated in the project for various reasons. One farmer installed all the fencing
with his own resources because he wanted his children to be able to "fish in clean water." Another
farmer participated because a bridge allowed his herd to cross the stream easily without being
blocked by high water during summer storms. Once the landowners began the process, they found
the treatments to be simple to install and maintain, and easy to incorporate into their normal farm
management practices. In addition, farmers were pleasantly surprised by the small amount of land
that needed to be removed from grazing to protect the stream.
Of course, not all farmers in the watershed chose to participate. According to the DEC, some
farmers believed that brush growing along the streambanks was unsightly and unacceptable. DEC
hopes to change this attitude with future education efforts.
Despite the impact of the unplanned land-use changes in one of the treated watersheds, the study
showed that riparian zone protection and restoration can be a cost-effective tool for reducing NPS
pollution and loads from livestock grazing lands in the Lake Champlain Basin. This set of simple
and inexpensive practices, applied as part of the overall NPS management effort in the Lake
Champlain Basin, serves as an example for impaired watersheds across the country.
i
[For more Information, contact Don Meals, an environmental consultant who formerly worked with the
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, atdmeals@wcvt.com. Copies of the final project
report may be obtained from Rick Hopkins, Vermont DEC Water Quality Division,
rickh@dec.anr.state.vt.us. Additional information, including a copy of the project's Final Executive
Summary, is available at: www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/VT319Watershed.htm.]
16
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 2002, ISSUE #68
-------
Agricultural Notes
Long Creek Watershed Goes to the Source
In September 2001, the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (Extension Service) marked
the successful completion of an in-depth water quality monitoring and BMP project in the Long
Creek watershed. The 28,480-acre watershed, located in the southwest part of the state, hosts a
mixture of agricultural and urban/industrial activity. Nonpoint source pollution caused by these
practices led Long Creek to be identified as a high priority for pollution control as early as 1991.
Fortunately, the Extension Service applied for and was accepted into EPA's 319 National
Monitoring Program, which provided funding through the state agency for the Extension Service's
efforts to identify the sources of pollution and restore the waterway.
Testing the Water
Before implementing BMPs, Extension Service staff first identified sources of pollution in the
watershed. Beginning in 1993, staff monitored water quality in several locations, assessing
biological parameters, including macroinvertebrates and bacteria, and chemical parameters such as
total suspended solids and dissolved oxygen. The data indicated that NPS pollution from farms,
towns, construction sites, and eroding streambanks degraded fish habitat, drinking water supplies,
and downstream lake quality. Because the agricultural component of the pollution was the easiest
to identify and mitigate, project staff chose to focus on implementing agricultural BMPs in the
watershed.
Garnering Landowner Participation
The Extension Service strongly encouraged individual farmer
participation throughout the watershed. Through a series of
one-on-one visits, project staff explained the benefits and
components of the project to the farmers, kept them aware of
progress, and addressed questions and concerns. The outreach
efforts succeeded more than 20 farmers agreed to participate.
Kiser Dairy, near Bessemer City, which became one of the Long
Creek Project's most successful efforts, is an example of the types
of BMPs implemented throughout the watershed. In cooperation
with owner Melvin Kiser, the Extension Service implemented a
new waste management system and protected the stream from
impacts from cattle grazing and crossing. They installed a waste
holding lagoon and an underground main hydrant, fenced out
catde from the nearby stream, and planted a new buffer of trees
along the stream. Following the implementation of these BMPs,
monitoring data showed a dramatic reduction in bacteria,
sediment, and nutrient levels. Data indicated that, on average, the
total solid load decreased by 80 percent and die total phosphorus
and total nitrogen loads decreased by 70 percent.
Taking the Project to the Public
Throughout its duration, the project provided many
opportunities for the media, public, elected officials, and school
children to learn about NPS pollution and water quality. To keep
the public aware of the project's status, the Extension Service
conducted several public meetings and media campaigns between
1993 and 2001. Project personnel visited farmers in the watershed
to keep them aware of progress and address any concerns. More
than 85 percent of the schools (100 percent of elementary and
junior high schools) in the watershed toured various participating
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 17
Before (top) and After (bottom): The Long Creek project has
dramatically reduced sediment, nitrogen, and fecal coliform levels
at this Kiser Dairy sampling site. Before work began, the stream
eroded as cattle entered the stream. Now at the same site, a lush
vegetative buffer filters out potential water contaminants.
-------
Long Creek farms and attended special Extension Service-sponsored classes on soil and water cycles, NFS
Watershed Goes to pollution, and surface and groundwater contamination.
the Source
(continued) Though the Long Creek Watershed 319 Project has formally come to an end, other watersheds in
Gaston County continue to implement'cattle exclusion, stream restoration, and constructed
wetland projects. These new projects prove that the lessons learned from the Long Creek Project
still inspire new ideas and enthusiasm.
[For more information, contact David Fogarty, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, P.O. Box
1578, Gastonia, NC 28056. Phone: (704) 922-2119; e-mail: davidjogartyฎncsu.edu. For more
information about the section 319 National Monitoring Program, see
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319/overview.html.]
Notes on Education
The Awesome Aquifer Adventure
The Groundwater Foundation recently released the 2001-2002 Awesome Aquifer Club (AAC) kit
for educators. The AAC, a classroom-based program, promotes groundwater education during the
school year through classroom and community activities.
Classroom and community groups joining the program receive the Awesome Aquifer Club kit that
includes:
The Awesome Aquifer Club's Educator's Guide;
One of two Groundwater Foundation publications, Making Discoveries: Groundwater
Activities for the Classroom and Community or the brand new Making Ripples: How to Put on
a School-based Water Festival;
Three issues of the club newspaper, The Groundwater Gazette, for every student or youth
member of the AAC;
A Groundwater Foundation product catalog; and
Stickers, membership cards, and other fun items for every member.
In addition, The Groundwater Foundation announced the availability of the new AAC video, The
Awesome Aquifer Adventure. This lively and exciting 7-minute video features G.W. Geko, the
official AAC mascot, teaching and learning about groundwater with students at the annual
Children's Groundwater Festival at Grand Island, Nebraska. The video contains groundwater
information and also serves as a promotional and recruitment tool.
[For more information, contact the Groundwater Foundation, P.O. Box 22558, Lincoln, NE 68542; e-mail:
info@groundwater.org; Internet: www.groundwater.org/KidsCorner/AAC.htm.]
Nutrient-rich Education in Iowa
Iowa residents learn more about nutrient management every day, thanks to Iowa State University
(ISU) Extension and its partners. The Nutrient Management Education Project (NMEP) helps
Iowa citizens better understand nutrient pollution sources, the impacts of that pollution, and what
management and regulation issues are involved in nutrient issues. Ultimately, the NMEP strives to
reduce agricultural NPS pollution through changes in land management, including voluntary
adoption of management practices by producers and crop management service providers. To do
this NMEP partners focus on developing and marketing research-based educational materials and
programs.
Initiated in December 1999, the NMEP is funded through September 2002 by a $116,640 grant
from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources' section 319 funds. The grant pays for a staff
position at ISU Extension, office space, travel, and project activities such as the development of
publications and press releases.
18
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 2002, ISSUE #68
-------
Nutrient-rich
Education in Iowa
(continued)
In addition to the NMEP coordinator and other ISU Extension staff, the project receives technical
support from the Nutrient Management Information Team, comprised of representatives from
more than 20 diverse groups, including the Agribusiness Association of Iowa, Iowa Association of
Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers, Iowa Bankers Association, Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Manure Management Action Group, and the
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. These groups partner in the NMEP because they are
interested in nutrient-related water quality issues and are willing to help educate the public.
Representatives meet at least quarterly to provide guidance for NMEP activities and to review
articles, publications, and other educational materials.
Why the NMEP?
Although residential homeowners benefit from the educational material they see and hear, the
NMEP aims its efforts primarily at agricultural producers throughout Iowa. More than 91 percent
of Iowa's land is farmed, with 81.6 percent managed as cropland. A 1998 ISU Extension Farm and
Rural Life survey of Iowa producers found that only 47 percent of crop producers reported they
adjusted commercial fertilizer rates after applying manure to a field, and 59 percent used judgment
alone when determining manure application rates. "There are certain management practices that
all farmers should be implementing, such as testing soil and manure for plant-available nutrients,
and applying manure and commercial fertilizer according to soil test recommendations. Manure
should serve as a resource rather than a waste product," explained Dr. John Creswell, NMEP
Coordinator. "Our first goal is to reach those who are not yet implementing the basics."
Educating as Many People as Possible
The NMEP partners channel nutrient information through many sources, including radio, printed
media, and the Internet. During the past two years Creswell and the NMEP partners produced a
series of 60-second radio spots called the Nutrient Management Minute (available in audio and
text versions online atwww.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/markets/nmm.htm). Creswell explained the
purpose of the spots in the first radio spot released the week of April 3, 2000:
"During this minute, we'll talk about ways that all lowans can help improve water quality in Iowa.
"We'll talk about ways to use nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous, so that you're not
over-applying fertilizer and wasting money in addition to polluting Iowa's lakes, rivers, and streams.
"We'll give you research-based information to use on your farm and your lawn and garden that will
help you raise a good yielding crop or have a great lawn while practicing good environmental
stewardship. "We'll tell you more about the Clean "Water Act and talk about it in ways that we
can all understand. It's time to face it we're all going to hear and learn more about improving
the quality of Iowa's surface waters in coming years. "We'll help you learn what you need to know to
protect and improve Iowa's waters."
Since then Creswell has delivered more than 60 radio spots on a weekly to bi-weekly basis
(depending on the season) on topics such as pasture management, manure management, Iowa's
surface water quality, carbon sequestration, soil testing, fertilizing lawns, and buffer strip use.
Sixty-four radio stations of varying formats throughout Iowa and surrounding states receive each
completed spot. Of these, Creswell estimates that at least 40 play the spots as public service,
announcements on a regular basis. "We've received positive comments from the listeners and good
reviews from the surveyed radio stations." In 2001 this outreach effort was rewarded by being
selected as the national communications radio program winner in a contest sponsored by the
National Association of County Agricultural Agents.
NMEP partners also rely on printed media such as press releases, information/fact sheets, and other
publications, to share the educational messages. Press releases issued through Iowa State University
are frequently featured in partners' newsletters, Iowa newspapers, and regional farming magazines.
To complement the existing information, Creswell plans to release a series of 11 BMP information
sheets on basic nutrient management issues, such as soil testing, phosphorus and nitrogen
management, no-till farming, crop rotation, nutrient management plans, equipment calibration,
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
19
-------
Nutrient-Rich the Conservation Reserve Program, and the use of riparian buffers and other conservation
Education in Iowa practices. The fact sheets are available in hard copy and on the Internet.
(continued)
For those with Internet access, ISU Extension offers a comprehensive NMEP web site titled
"Nitrogen and Phosphorus Knowledge" (extension.agron.iastate.edu/npknowledge). This site
provides nutrient research and BMP information, publications, and educational tools, either
direcdy or through links to other sites. For example, links to Purdue University and the USDA
NRCS help visitors investigate BMP information. A series of ready-made power point
presentations features topics like nutrient management basics, nutrient criteria/standards, and
TMDLs. The site also offers a valuable real-time resource daily soil temperature and weather
forecast information for locations throughout Iowa to help producers plan fall nitrogen fertilizer
application. "We had over 27,500 hits during the last quarter of 2001," said Creswell. "We've
found that the soil temperature forecast information page is the most popular."
Building on existing relationships contributed to the Iowa NMEP s success, noted Creswell. "I've
found over the past 28 years of working for ISU Extension and especially in the past 2 years as
coordinator of this project that lowans communicate and work together to solve problems.
There is disagreement, but for the most part individuals representing the many public and private
agencies and organizations concerned about water quality issues do listen and respect each other's
opinions." As in many areas of the country the Iowa NEMP serves as a model for those functioning
partnerships seeking to achieve a mutual goal through voluntary means.
[For more information contact Dr. John L Creswell, Coordinator, Nutrient Management Education Project,
Iowa State University Extension, 10861 Douglas Avenue, Suite B, Urbandale, IA 50322-2042. Phone:
(515) 727-0656; e-mail: creswell@iastate.edu.]
Riparian Event Becomes School-wide Celebration
For the past three years, an elementary school in rural Bridgewater, Virginia has held an outdoor
environmental fair to educate the entire student body about riparian buffers, NPS pollution, native
plants, and other environmental issues. Begun as a simple riparian restoration project at Wildwood
Park, a local park devastated by flooding, the event has grown into an annual school-wide
environmental celebration and educational event.
Once a homestead, Wildwood Park is located on 11 acres along the North River, a tributary of the
Shenandoah River in die Chesapeake Bay watershed. The town of Bridgewater bought the land in
the 1970s and dedicated it as a community park shortly thereafter. Major floods in September
1996 and January 1997 roared through a large, wild portion of the park acreage, knocking down
trees and dropping debris from upstream. After the floods, the town of Bridgewater cleaned the
area removing the debris and downed trees, plus all the existing understory vegetation. To make
the area aesthetically pleasing, the town then planted the entire area with grass. The once wild area
known as Wildwood had become only tall trees and grass it looked park-like, but was not very
friendly to wildlife or the environment.
Local Organizations Get Involved
In April 1998 John Wayland Elementary School 0WE) planted trees in the park as part of the
school's natural resources awareness program. Realizing the educational opportunity available at the
park, JWE teachers decided to incorporate outdoor science lessons into the school's curriculum for
the next two years. They began planning ways for students, through lessons and cooperative
activities, to begin restoring the park as they learned about habitats, life cycles, conservation, effects
of weathering, soil erosion, and water quality.
At the same time, members of the Shenandoah Chapter of the Virginia Native Plant Society
(VNPS) worked with the town, Bridgewater College, and a local watershed organization, the
Shenandoah Valley Pure Water 2000 Forum (Forum), to raise funds to restore the wetland and
riparian areas destroyed as a result of flooding. JWE joined as a partner in the restoration project.
2O
NONPOIKT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 2002, ISSUE #63
-------
Riparian Event
Becomes
School-wide
Celebration
(continued)
Students and teachers join forces to plant trees.
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay's Small Watershed Grant Program awarded the Forum
approximately $5,000 in grant funds for the project with the town matching funding.
The First Park-wide Planting and Learning Day is Born!
The Forum, VNPS, JWE, and other partners planned the first riparian planting event for October
1998. VNPS developed a plant list and staked out planting locations for hundreds of plants. JWE
teachers, with administration cooperation, devoted an entire school day around an outdoor
educational fair at the park. Over 600 students, their teachers, and many parent volunteers
descended on the park at pre-arranged times, taking part in education stations including native
plant education and riparian planting, macroinvertebrate identification, and geology, fishery, and
erosion studies. Local environmental organizations, VNPS, the Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, and others developed and supported each science station. Stories, songs, and snack
stations rounded out the day. "The students loved spending the day at the park," explained JWE
teacher Joan Kenney. "That is all they could talk about for weeks. Their enthusiasm was incentive
for us to repeat the event."
Some students even went out of their way to volunteer in the park
throughout the year. In March 1999 the Forum, Bridgewater College, and
VNPS organized the second of two planting events supported by the grant
this weekend event encouraged participation by local residents. Over
60 community members came out to plant, including many students who
had participated the previous fall. "The first planting event made an
impression on the students," noted VNPS president Carol Gardner. "They
cared about the project and wanted to continue to help. Many of the
students came back for our early spring planting day, this time with their
parents in tow."
Out of Money? We'll Find Our Own!
Once the initial source of funding for purchasing plants was depleted,
JWE struck out on its own. Throughout March and April 1999, a
number of JWE classes took field trips to the park to continue
restoration on a small scale. A few classes planted water lilies and other
wetland plants in a "Monet Garden" as part of a $300 Virginia
Commission for the Arts grant received by a JWE teacher. Other classes
used money that they raised selling crayons to plant a butterfly and
hummingbird garden. But that wasn't enough. In 1999 the teachers at
JWE applied for and received a $5,000 grant from the Virginia
Environmental Endowment (VEE) to help them establish and equip a
Science and Art Learning Center at the school and continue to restore
the park so that it could be used as an outdoor classroom. Since 1999
the teachers have secured additional funding from the school PTA and
solicited donation of trees and mulch from the town.
Using these resources, JWE held all-day environmental education events in May 1999 and October
2000. Each event included science lessons such as planting native plants, identifying and weeding
invasive plants, conducting plant surveys, and understanding soil and erosion. In 2001, individual
classes remained active, visiting the park to maintain the planted areas and assess the health of the
plants despite the absence of an all-day event. Throughout the month of May, the school plans to
host grade-level field trips. Students will work with the town parks and recreation staff to plant,
clean up, and investigate changes in the park. Teachers plan to provide additional class activities
during school visits.
Well Worth the Effort
Although working with so many volunteers of different ages was sometimes challenging, the benefits
to the park and the participants made the effort rewarding. "With the help of the students and our
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
21
-------
Riparian Event
Becomes
School-wide
Celebration
(continued)
other partners, the restoration project has come a long way," explained Gardner. "We've planted
almost 850 perennials and 450 trees and shrubs. Most of these plants have survived, despite drought-
years, and we are seeing wildlife and birds that were not seen here before. Because the school
remained involved while the restoration project developed, the students have been able to see the
results of their efforts. This has helped them to respect and understand their environment."
JWE teachers feel the same way. "I would recommend this type of educational approach to teachers in
other schools. Although the preparation is time intensive, the learning, interaction, and results made
it worthwhile," explains Kenney. "The children are very proud of what they have accomplished.
During several of my visits, I have seen children with their parents pointing out the tree that they
planted, or the snake in the river, or explaining why the weeds are a problem. We are very proud that
this project has had such an effect." One student, Jordan Sites, expressed his opinions in a note to one
of his teachers. "Wildwood Park is a place where families can help the environment. It is a place
where different animals can share the same home. It is a place that people can care about."
[For more information, contact Joan Kenney, John Way/and Elementary, 801 N. Main Street, Bridgewater,
VA 22812. Phone: (540) 828-6081; e-mail: jkenney@rockingham.k12.va.us.]
Maine Campaign: Soil Erosion Awareness
For years the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) has worked to educate the public
about soil erosion and its detrimental effects on
water quality. However, years of phone surveys had
shown that the public knew very little about the
effect soil erosion has on water quality or how to address it. To help raise public awareness, Maine
DEP recently introduced a successful advertising pilot project.
Before implementing a statewide educational campaign, Maine DEP worked with Market
Decisions and Burgee Advertising to develop the advertising pilot project. According to Kathy
Hoppe, Maine DEP Nonpoint Source Project Manager and Outreach Coordinator, "we knew that
the citizens knew virtually nothing about soil erosion as a pollutant so we needed to try to reach
large numbers of people. The question was could we do this effectively using mass media. Rather
than risk the money to go statewide, a pilot project was conducted. If project staff could prove they
could effectively raise awareness and hopefully start people down the road of behavior change, then
management was willing to look for the financial support to take such a project statewide. The
project used social marketing techniques, including phone surveys, focus groups, and media tools
to develop and evaluate the project. Using $60,000 in funding, from a variety of sources, including
Clean Water Act section 319 federal grants and state money, Maine DEP set off to enlighten the
masses.
Testing the Market
Based on recommendations from Burgess Advertising and Market Decisions, and with input from
the project team, the DEP selected a geographical area or media market that represented the entire
state and could be effectively reached with available funding. The team selected the greater Augusta
area as the major focus because a major newspaper and several radio stations served the area, which
represented a demographic cross-section of residents and rural/urban areas. The team also selected
Portland, Monmouth, and Litchfield for additional parts of the campaign.
The team then worked with two focus groups to provide citizen input on their ideas, thoughts, and
behaviors with regard to soil erosion and water pollution. The focus groups helped the team decide
which communication materials to use in the advertising test. The first group focused on an
urban/suburban area in Portland, and the second group worked with rural/suburban participants
in Augusta. Based on the focus group results, the team launched an advertising test including
newspaper and radio ads and direct mailings. Four separate mailings were sent to approximately
2,000 households in the nearby towns of Monmouth and Litchfield.
22
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 2002, ISSUE #68
-------
Maine Campaign: To evaluate the effectiveness of the advertising campaign, the organization conducted fblfow-up
So/7 Erosion telephone surveys. The survey included 20 questions repeating previous surveys on sources of water
Awareness pollution. A total of 300 interviews was conducted, including 75 interviews of residents who
(continued) recdved the dkect mailings-
Evaluating the Results
Prior to the ad campaign, focus group participants cared a great deal about the environment. They
knew about environmental issues and sources of water pollution, though soil erosion was not at the
top of their list and rarely mentioned. Focus group participants received most of their knowledge
from the media and asked for credible information about soil erosion, knowing that the media
tended to sensationalize environmental issues. Participants also suggested that soil erosion
prevention was often impractical or unclear, meaning that they wanted to fix the problem but
didn't know how.
Following the campaign, results showed that the advertising project achieved a high level of
awareness. Thirty-one percent recalled the advertising with or without assistance from the
surveyors. The newspaper and radio advertising was the most effective, and the direct mailings did
not appear to be effective at all. Twelve percent of survey respondents mentioned soil erosion when
asked about important sources of water pollution (a 12 percent increase over previous phone
surveys). Of those who remembered the ads, almost 70 percent could describe at least one action
that could be taken to reduce soil erosion.
Looking Towards the Future
Because of the project's success, Maine DEP now has a plan for maintenance and evaluation of
their outreach program. Hoppe said, "We no longer say we distributed X number of brochures,
which doesn't tell us if we have raised awareness, nor does it tell us if we are moving toward or have
achieved behavioral change. Rather we measure change in awareness and ask if there has been any
behavioral change." Maine DEP plans to further the success of the project by implementing it in
other locations around the state.
[For more information, contact Kathy Hoppe, Maine DEP, 1235 Central Drive, Presque Isle, ME 04769.
Phone: (207) 764-0477; Fax: (207) 764-1507; e-mail: kathy.m.hoppe@state.me.us.]
1 + 1 = H2O
"Sharpen your pencil, brush up on your math skills and win a free Water Conservation Kit."
This is the challenge the Swatara Creek Watershed Association (SCWA) posed to the nearly
300,000 people living in its southeastern Pennsylvania watershed. SCWA published a math quiz
about household water use in their quarterly newsletter, and in just two months, the SCWA's plan
to reach every household has, in the words of SCWA President Jo Ellen Litz, "really taken off.
Adults are filling out the quiz we printed in our newsletter, and teachers are copying it to give to
their students." She adds that "we set up this quiz for success. It's not easy, you have to think, but
so far over 90 percent of the entries have been correct." SCWA delivers the kits as prizes to
winning students at their schools; adult winners pick up their kits at the SCWA office.
The Water Conservation Kits include:
1 toilet tank bank capable of saving one gallon of water per flush;
1 fill cycle diverter capable of saving 1.5 gallons of water per flush;
1 motion flow showerhead capable of saving 2.5 gallons of water over conventional
models;
Leak detection tablets to help pinpoint cosdy toilet tank leaks; and
Faucet aerators for both the kitchen and bathroom capable of saving 2.5 gallons of water
per minute over conventional faucet sink aerators.
SCWA used a state grant to purchase the 800 kits from Niagara Conservation, a 22-year-old New
Jersey firm specializing in energy and water conservation. "They will customize the kits to the
JUNE 2OO2, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
23
-------
1 + 1 = HsO buyer's needs," Litz says. "They are great to work with, and I would recommend them to other
(continued) watershed associations."
Municipalities and utilities, Niagaras principal clients, purchased a large number of kits ranging
from 5,000 for Roanoke, Virginia to 200,000 for El Paso, Texas, which distributed diem to every
household in the perennially dry city.
[For more information, contact Jo Ellen Litz, 2501 Cumberland Sf., Suite 2, Lebanon PA 17042; Phone:
(717)274-1175, or Arty Toleno, Niagara Conservation, 45 Horsehill Road, Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927.
Phone: (973) 829-0800; Internet: www.niagaraconservation.com.]
Web-based Program Educates Pennsylvania Students
The numbers are impressive for the Watershed Education Program sponsored
by Pennsylvania: Over the past three years, more than 2,000 teachers and
students from 50 schools 446 teachers participating in 28 teacher
workshops and civic groups, as well, have used the web-based program to
select a waterway they can study, learn from, and craft an appropriate
stewardship program to help the waterway. For an overview of the watershed
program, visit www.dcnr.state.pa.us.
Best Management Practices for Storm Water Phase II Menu
As part of its public outreach program, EPA recently completed its National Menu of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for Storm Water Phase II, the Phase II referring to the second phase
implementation of NPDES requirements. The menu, intended as guidance only and available
online at www.epa.gOV/npdes/m.enuofbmps/menu.htm, provides information to regulated small
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) about the types of practices they could use to
develop and implement their storm water management programs.
The Phase II rule describes six minimum control measures which most regulated small MS4s will
need to implement. EPA anticipates that these minimum control measures typically will be
implemented by applying one or more BMPs appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The
practices listed in the menu of BMPs have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of
practices that can be applied successfully to achieve the minimum control measures. The six
measures are:
public education and outreach on storm water impacts,
public involvement/participation,
illicit discharge detection and elimination,
construction site storm water runoff control,
post-construction storm water management in new development and redevelopment, and
pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations.
Reviews and Announcements
Texas Smartscape
Texas Smartscape is an interactive CDROM created by a multi-disciplinary team to help
homeowners and developers in North Central Texas learn how to landscape with native and
adapted plants. The team hopes that by encouraging landowners to use attractive native plants that
require little maintenance, the landowners will prevent pollutants from entering local watersheds
and will protect the water supply during hot, dry summers. To help meet people's aesthetic needs,
many of the plants featured on the CDROM will also attract butterflies and hummingbirds.
24
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June 2002, ISSUE #68
-------
Texas Smartscape The North Central Texas Council of Governments, Tarrant County, Texas Agricultural Extension
(continued) Service, Tarrant Regional Water District, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and Weston Gardens developed
Texas Smartscape. To ensure maximum distribution of the information, the team has made the
CDROM freely available. In fact, more than 90 entities, including local cities, county agencies,
some area nurseries, and other organizations in North Central Texas have ordered 84,105 copies of
the CDROM and will distribute them for little or no cost. Additional copies of the CD can be
produced and distributed for free without registration restraints.
[For more information, see www.dfwstormwater.com/smartscapecd.html or contact John Promise,
Director, NCTCOG Environmental Resources, 616 Six Flags Drive, Suite 200, Centerpoint Two, Arlington,
TX 76005-5888; Phone: (817) 695-9231; e-mail: Jpromise@dfwinfo.com.]
Watershed Success Stories
The latest edition of Watershed Success Stories is available online at the Clean Water Action Plan
web site (www.cleanwater.gov/success). The 68-page report contains pictures and summaries of
community water quality improvement projects from across the U.S. Each project involves active
; participation by the local community with assistance from varying government agencies and
funding sources, including Clean Water Act section 319 grants. The 30 success stories presented in
this report demonstrate how coordinating efforts of federal, state, and local partners can lead to
i innovative restoration solutions for a wide variety of water quality problems.
, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management
The National Research Council (NRC) issued a report on the total maximum daily load program
(TMDL) program in the summer of 2001, called Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality
Management, which included a number of recommendations for improving the TMDL program.
i However, NRC generally found the TMDL program to be sound and recommended that the program
should proceed while science continues to improve. Congress asked NRC to examine the program's
scientific basis for (1) determining which waters are impaired and (2) for developing TMDLs.
The most important conclusion of the report is that "scientific uncertainty is a reality within all water
quality programs, including the TMDL program, that cannot be entirely eliminated. The states and
EPA should move forward while making substantial efforts to reduce uncertainty." The report also
stressed that the goal of attaining designated uses "should not be limited by unreasonable expectations
: for predictive certainty among regulators, affected sources, and stakeholders."
The report is available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20418. Phone: (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313. Internet: www.nap.edu/books/0309075793/html.
: New Video Explores How TMDLs Keep Our Waters Clean
"By combining science and technology with education and community involvement, TMDLs are
making a difference around the country." These facts, quoted by narrator Ed Berliner, are brought
to life in a new video targeted at the public, politicians, and local decision makers.
TECHNO 2100: Keeping Our Waters Clean, produced and released by the Information Television
Network, introduces the issues surrounding TMDLs. The video first provides the viewer with basic
background information, including the hydrologic cycle, what makes up a watershed, and the types
of water quality monitoring used by agencies and citizen groups. The video then introduces the
viewer to the TMDL approach by defining it as an approach that represents the next step in
protecting the nation's lakes, rivers, and streams ." After oudining the parts and purpose of a
TMDL, the video explains the need for ongoing research into potential water pollutants and
stresses the importance of cooperation between all stakeholders. Learn about coastal pollution
problems in California's Monterey Bay and algae blooms in Missouri's famous Table Rock Lake
and how TMDLs are being used in these and other regions to identify the pollution problems and
develop solutions. Farmers, environmentalists, state agency personnel, and others across the
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
25
-------
New Video Explores
How TMDLs Keep
Our Waters Clean
(continued)
country share their experiences with the TMDL program and underscore the need for and the
importance of TMDLs.
The video, which premiered in December 2001 on CNBC during sponsored programming, was
developed with support and cooperation from EPA, America's Clean "Water Foundation, the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), and state
environmental agencies in Arizona, California, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri.
The video is available for purchase for $29 by calling (888) 380-6500. It is also be available on the
Internet at www.itvisus.com/broadcast/techno/keepwatersclean/index.htm and at
webevents.broadcast.com/informationtvnetwork/cetr.html. For more information contact Jamie Wood, ITV
Program Development, Boca Raton, FL. Phone: (561) 997-5433; e-mail: info@itvisus.com; Internet:
www.itvisus.com.
Websites Worth a Bookmark
The Guardian Newsletter:
www.guardiannewsltr. com/eguardian. htm
This online bimonthly newsletter, created in 1995, provides information for volunteers interested
in environmental service. It lists national and international environmental service trips involving
research assistance, repairing hiking trails, wildlife habitat restoration and preservation, rebuilding
of international communities, and teaching languages to other cultures.
Great Lakes Commission Water Quality:
www.glc.org/wquality.html
The Great Lakes Commission, a binational agency, promotes the orderly, integrated and
comprehensive development, use and conservation of the water and related natural resources of the
Great Lakes basin and St. Lawrence River. The Great Lakes Commission homepage provides area
information including sustainable watershed planning, sediment and soil erosion, and more.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Contacts:
www. epa.gov/owow/nps/contacts. html
EPA has posted contact information for federal, regional, and state nonpoint source contacts in
"Word Perfect and Rich Text Format..
DATEBOOK is prepared with the cooperation of our readers. If you would like a meeting or event placed
in the DATEBOOK, contact the NFS News-Notes editors. Notices should be in our hands at least two
months in advance to ensure timely publication.
Meetings and Events
July 2OO2
13 AWRA's Annual Summer Conference: Ground Water/Surface Water Interactions, Keystone, CO. Contact Michael J.
Kowalski, AWRA Director of Operations, 4 West Federal Street, P.O. Box 1626, Middleburg, VA 20118-1626.
Phone: (540) 687-8390; Fax: (540) 687-8395; E-mail: mike@awra.org.
26
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
June Z002, ISSUE #68
-------
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon #68
(Mail or Fax this coupon to us)
Our Mailing Address: NPS News-Notes, c/o Terrene Institute, 4 Herbert Street,
Alexandria, VA 22305
Our Fax Numbers:
NPS News-Notes (2O2) 566-1333 and (703) 548-6299.
Use this Coupon to
(check one or more)
d Share Your Clean Water Experiences
CJ Ask for Information
Ql Make a Suggestion
Write your story, ask your question, or make your suggestions here:
Attach additional pages if necessary.
Your Name:
Organization:
Address:
City/State:.
Phone:
E-mail:
Date;
Zip:
Fax:
Web site:
JUNE 2002, ISSUE #68
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
27
-------
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES is an occasional bulletin dealing with the condition of the water-related environment,
the control of nonpoint sources of water pollution and the ecosystem-driven management and restoration of water-
sheds. NFS pollution comes from many sources and is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the
ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural pollutants and pollutants resulting from human activ-
ity, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and ground water. NFS pollution.is associated
with land management practices involving agriculture, silviculture, mining, and urban runoff. Hydrologic modification is
a form of NFS pollution which often adversely affects the biological integrity of surface waters. : ,
Editorial contributions from our readers sharing knowledge, experiences and/or opinions are invited and welcomed.
(Use the COUPON on page 27.) However, NEWS-NOTES cannot assume any responsibility for publication or
nonpublication of unsolicited material nor for statements and opinions expressed by contributors. All material in
NEWS-NOTES has been prepared by the staff unless otherwise attributed. For inquiries on editorial matters, call (703)
548-5473 or FAX (202) 566-1333.
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES is produced by the Terrene Institute under an EPA Cooperative Agreement
(# 820957-01) from the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,.Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds-,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is distributed free of cost. Views expressed do riot necessarily reflect those of
EPA or the Terrene Institute. Mention of commercial products or publications does not constitute endorsement, -or rec-
ommendation for use, by EPA or the Terrene Institute.
NONPOINT SOURCE
News-Notes
c/o Terrene Institute
4 Herbert Street
Alexandria, VA 22305
NONPROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Merrifieid, VA
Permit No. 1308**
------- |