United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-841-N-92-005
August-September 1992
#23
PxEPA News-Notes
The Condition of the Environment and the Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
A Water Quality Highlight
EPA Region VI Develops a Nonpoint Source
'Environmental Excellence Awards Program
EPA's Region VI, headquartered in Dallas, contains the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas,
Louisiana, and New Mexico. In 1991 the region initiated the Regional Administrator's
Environmental Excellence Awards Program for the control and prevention of nonpoint source
pollution. Winners for 1992 have just been announced.
The 1992 Winners are:
/: Regulatory Program
"The Lake Travis Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Ordinance," Lower Colorado River
Authority, Austin, Texas
II-.Technical Assistance Program
"Technical Assistance Program," Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation
District, Austin, Texas"
///; Educational Program
"Colorado River Watch," Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, Texas
IV: Other/Pollution Prevention
"Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program," City of Austin, Texas
V: Individual Achievement
No award this year.
VI: Agency/Organization Recognition
Washington County Conservation District, Fayetteville, Arkansas
All nominees, including those nominated in Category V where no award was made, received
Certificates of Appreciation from the Regional Administrator.
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
A Water Quality Highlight
Environmental Excellence Awards in EPA Region VI 1
Commentary
Lakes Conference Brings Exciting Opportunities 2
News-Notes Editorial Policy 3
Noteworthy Water Quality Happenings
Water Quality 2000 Interim Report 4
Waters at Risk: Keeping Clean Waters Clean 5
Fertilizers and Pesticides in Groundwater 6
Audubon's America Conservation Project 7
EPA Administrator's Awards for Excellence 8
New Watershed/Riparian Extension Specialist Job 9
New Water Quality Standards Video 9
News From The States
Wisconsin Extension Maps Successful Volunteer Programs 9
Young Farmers and Large Corporations Invest in Conservation 10
TVA Develops Cooperative Watershed NFS Cleanup 11
South Carolina Requires Statewide Stormwater Management 13
Notes on The Coastal Environment
Growth Management/Water Quality Plan Required in Puget Sound . .14
Agricultural Motes
Livestock Grazing: A Sustainable Agriculture Practice 15
Farm*A*Syst Sweeping the Country ..-.- 16
Agriculture Waste Management Proceedings Available 17
How to Seal Abandoned Wells Video 17
Notes on Riparian & Watershed Management
Managing Riparian Areas on Forest Lands 18
Forestry BMP Evaluation Initiated by Forest Service Region 5 18
Notes on Environmental Education
Wisconsin Students Study Watershed and Lake 20
Classroom Guide on NFS Pollution Prevention 22
NPS Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS} News 22
News-Notes Database Made Easier 23
DATEBOOK .24
THE COUPON 27
-------
EPA Region VI Develops
a Nonpoint Source
Environmental
Excellence Awards
Program
(continued)
The purpose of the program is to recognize agencies, organizations, individuals, and projects
that have made significant accomplishments in the control and prevention of nonpoint source
pollution; to promote state, federal, and public support in attaining and maintaining water
quality; and to heighten public awareness of NFS pollution problems and solutions.
Here's how the program works:
There are six categories of awards:
I. Regulatory Program
II. Technical Assistance Program
ffl. Educational Program
IV. Other (e.g. demonstration project, innovative technology, watershed project,
pollution prevention, etc.)
V. Individual Achievement Award
VI. Agency/Organization Recognition
Each state may nominate as many as two candidates for any category, but not more
than seven nominees per state for all categories.
Nominations are screened by Region VI for any non-compliant facilities, etc.
One regional winner for each category is selected by a 12-member awards committee.
This year the committee included representatives from the University of Arkansas at
Little Rock; the League of Women Voters, Texas; Conoco Inc., Oklahoma; Oklahoma
Farm Bureau; the Soil Conservation Service, Louisiana; and EPA Region VI staff from
the Office of Groundwater, the Permits Branch, the Marine and Estuarine Section, the
Wetlands Program, and the Pesticides and Toxics Branch.
[For more information, contact: Petra Sanchez (6WQS), U.S. EPA Region VI, First Interstate Bank Tower at
Fountain Place, 1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. Phone: (214)
655-7140.] :
A Commentary . . .
Lakes Conference Brings Citizens, States, and Feds Together-
Presents Exciting Opportunities
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following comments were contributed by EPA's Clean Lakes Program Chief Frank
Lapensee. Next year's conference is already in the planning stages. The theme will be the role of
watershed analysis and controls in lake protection.
The national conference entitled Enhancing the States'Lakes Management Programs, was held
May 6-8 in Chicago for the fifth consecutive year. This year the theme was "Strengthening
State and Local Interactions," and it was the most productive, rewarding and exciting of the
meetings we have had. The opportunities it presented were beyond my wildest expectations.
We have made a giant step forward in meeting our goal to support and improve state lake
programs and beyond that, to restore and protect our nation's lakes.
This year, we invited 28 state-wide lake associations to join our conference to discuss lake
issues important to volunteer citizen organizations. Twenty-seven of the 28 associations
accepted our invitation and participated as full partners in exchanging ideas and interacting,
in many cases for the first time, with other lake associations, state lake program managers, and
federal lake program managers.
The conference was sponsored by EPA's Clean Lakes Program and EPA Region V under a
grant to the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, in cooperation with the North
American Lake Management Society. The conference featured 11 sessions, including a very
active workshop on strengthening relationships between states' lakes programs and state-wide
citizen lake associations. There was also an exceptional presentation by Robert Korth on
improving communication skills; a very effective training session by Dianne Russell on
enhancing leadership skills for volunteer organizers; and an informative presentation by Dave
Sabock on lake water quality standards.
-------
Lakes Conference
Brings Citizens, States,
and Feds Together-
Presents Exciting
Opportunities
(continued)
It is clear that state lake programs must have the active support and involvement of citizens to
survive and grow. This conference was our first attempt to bring together the state lake
program manager and the citizens represented by their state-wide lake associations. We
wanted the citizen to be a full participant in this conference, and it really paid off. We feds
learned, the states learned, and the citizens learned; we all walked away from this conference
with something we can use to improve the quality of our programs.
The feds and the states learned about the capabilities and enthusiasm that citizens can bring to
the program and the potential support they can provide toward maintaining a state program.
The citizens learned of the strengths and limitations of the federal and state programs, who to
contact for assistance in developing their programs, and how to effectively run a volunteer
organization.
The conference demonstrated the values of broadly-based teamwork.
[Single copies of the conference proceedings will be available at no cost later this year. To reserve a copy,
please contact Bob Kirschner, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, Natural Resources Department,
400 W. Madison St., Room 200, Chicago, IL 60606. Phone: (312) 454-0400.]
EDITOR'S NOTE: Anyone interested in using volunteers for lake monitoring should write to the Watershed
Branch (WH-553), USEPA, Washington DC 20460, and ask for their publication: Volunteer Lake Moni-
toring: A Methods Manual, EPA 440/4-91-002, December, 1991. No charge. Also, on the general use of
volunteers for water quality monitoring, there is an excellent EPA publication entitled Volunteer Water
Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers, EPA 440/4-90-0109, August 1990. Copies can be obtained by
writing to the Monitoring Branch (WH-553), USEPA, Washington DC 20460.
News-Notes Editorial Policy
EDITOR'S NOTE: During recent weeks there have been inquiries regarding the Editorial Policy under which A/PS News-Notes is
written and published. In response, we are sharing the policies that we have followed over the three years that News-Notes has
been in operation.
We invite comment and our readers' views, pro and con. The big question is how may we best meet the needs for information
on the condition of the environment and the control of nonpoint sources of water pollution. Another challenge is presenting in-
formation and various perspectives on controversial issues in a lively and straightforward manner without offending the sensi-
bilities of our readers. Use the Coupon on page 27 and let us have your views on how we are doing and on our editorial
policies. We need to be sure that our policies fit your needs.
Policies
1. Purpose and message A/PS News-Notes performs a communications and outreach
function. It is a publication of the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division of EPA's
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. News-Notes is published in the public interest
and is available to interested readers without cost. It is an occasional bulletin concerned with
the condition of the environment and the management and control of nonpoint sources of
water pollution. News-Notes deals with nonpoint sources, watershed management, the
environment, and affected ecosystems in a holistic, inter-related, and inter-dependent manner.
Its purpose is to provide readers with information on current happenings public and private
and emerging public policies and technologies on its range of environmental concerns.
2. Subject Matter News-Notes subject matter comes from wherever environmental and water
quality things are happening, including local, state, other federal agency, and private sector
activities. Occasionally, some of the material in News-Notes will be considered controversial by
some people. News-Notes seeks to presents ranges of views on controversial topics and
strives to maintain an objective voice. The commentary section of News-Notes is normally
devoted to a range of attributed views of people active or influential in nonpoint source or
environmental matters, including members of the editorial staff. These views are not
statements of EPA policy unless specifically identified as such.
3. Audience News-Notes' primary audience is state and local government; those
on-the-ground where the action is. Other audiences, federal agencies, the private sector,
citizen's groups, and the academic community are welcomed as readers, since they too are
important actors and participants in the development of environmental policies and action.
4. Authorship Unless otherwise attributed, all material in News-Notes is prepared by the
editorial staff.
-------
Noteworthy Water Quality Happenings
Water Quality 2000 Identifies
National Water Quality Problems
The Water Quality 2000 project, which last June concluded Phase II with the publication of
"Challenges for the Future," expects to issue a Phase III report in September.
Phase II was an extensive effort to document the problems facing surface water, groundwater,
and drinking water. The report was the product of 18 months of effort on the part of 10
workgroups involving more than 150 people. It describes,the present condition of the
country's water, the causes of water resource problems, and obstacles to improvement. It
concludes by pointing the direction for Phase III workgroups to go in seeking solutions.
The four-phase Water Quality 2000 project is a cooperative effort by representatives of over 80
groups with diverse interests in water policy. The project brings scientists, engineers, industry,
environmental organizations, and governments together to develop recommendations for the
21st century's water quality goals and policies. Phase I, identifying the organizations goals and
objectives, began in 1988 with a conference organized by the Water Environment Federation
(WEF).1
A year later, a second conference produced a goal statement:
To develop and implement an integrated policy for the nation to protect and enhance water
quality that supports society living in harmony with healthy natural systems.
Participants at the conference pledged to take a "long-range, visionary, and holistic
perspective" in developing a national water quality agenda.
The Phase II workgroup found that the lack of such an integrated approach in legislation,
funding, water quality institutions, and policies, is the major impediment to solutions. Other
impediments are inadequacies in research, public education, and the number of trained
professionals.
Evaluation of Present Conditions Hampered by Lack of Data
Even the task of describing the condition of the nation's water was made uncertain by
irregular, inadequate, and inconsistent monitoring approaches. "Ideally," the report states, "to
measure progress of clean water programs nationally, investigators would have access to
regularly collected data on physical, chemical, and biological conditions in fresh and marine
waters, groundwater, and aquatic habitats." But, the report continues, these data are not often
available. 305b reports are supposed to provide data to evaluate progress toward CWA goals,
yet they are quite limited in the type of data they contain. Data on sediment and aquatic life
are two areas the report says are insufficient.
Existing data indicate that much groundwater and surface water is contaminated. Fish tissue is
also contaminated in many waterbodies. The loss or degradation of aquatic habitat is not
monitored in any comprehensive way nationwide, but indications are that it is continuing; the
report states that one-third of North American fish taxa are in danger of extinction.
"Challenges for the Future" does not paint a completely bleak picture, however; it notes that
many point sources have come under control and many waters have regained their designated
uses. The return of certain fish species to their native waters has marked a turning point for
some waterbodies.
Lifestyle Choices Root Cause of Water Quality Problems
"Challenges for the Future" reported the sources of impairment as: agriculture, community
wastewater, atmospheric deposition, industry, land alteration, introduction of exotic species
and overharvest of native species, transportation, urban runoff, and hydromodification.
The root causes of water quality problems, however, were attributed to societal values and
lifestyle choices. The report categorized these as:
How (and where) we live
1 Formerly the Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF).
-------
Water Quality 2000 m How we duce and eonsume goods
dentifies National Water _ T ,
Quality Problems , How we farm ,
(continued) How we transport people and goods
How we plan
How we have acted in the past
Phase III Will Target Solutions
The report concluded by pinpointing areas for which Phase III will develop solutions: urban
and rural runoff, groundwater, toxic constituents, aquatic ecosystems, and drinking water. But,
the major challenge, it stated, is to "move the debate over water quality toward the root causes
of degradation in water resources presented in [the] paper. In practice, this means thinking
more carefully about how to pursue societal goals for living, working, farming, and producing
in ways that are consistent with improving the quality of the nation's water."
In Phase IV, the project will focus on communicating the policy recommendations within the
participating groups and to Congress, other decision-makers, and the public.
[More information on the project and copies of "Challenges for the Future: Interim Report" ($20) are
available from Tim Williams, Water Quality 2000, 601 Wythe St., Alexandria, VA 22314. Phone: (703)
684-2418.]
National Wildlife Federation Issues a Report
Waters at Risk: Keeping Clean Waters Clean
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article was prepared by the National Wildlife Federation. Their views are
printed here as a matter of general interest to our readers in this period of continued discussion on the
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act.
The National Wildlife Federation recently issued a report, Waters at Risk: Keeping Clean Waters
Clean, that concerns the failure of state and federal governments to protect pristine surface
waters from degradation.
In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act establishing two fundamental goals: attainment
of prescribed water quality standards in already polluted waters and maintenance of existing
high quality in non-polluted waters, including pristine lakes, rivers, estuaries, and coastal
waters. Significant progress had been made on the "attainment" goal. However, efforts of the
U.S. EPA to develop programs that prevent degradation of high quality waters have been
meager and half-hearted. Instead of taking action to protect pristine waters in this nation, EPA
has deferred to the states. EPA's guidelines, which call for no degradation to "outstanding
resource waters," are merely advisory.
To evaluate state efforts, the National Wildlife Federation requested states to complete a
voluntary survey. Of the 46 states that responded, eight reported having no state legal
authority to protect outstanding resource waters, ten reported using state guidelines less
protective than EPA's standards, and only 13 reported using a systematic inventory process to
identify such waters. Moreover, in states where a designation program exists, only 3.53 percent
of the river miles had in fact received designation as outstanding resource waters; 0.37 percent
are protected under stringent federal guidelines; and the remaining 3.16 percent are
designated under the less protective state classifications.
Because of the lack of adequate protection, many historically clean watershed areas are now
beginning to show the effects of pollution and other human activities. Several areas are
profiled in the report, including Lake Superior, Flathead Lake in Montana, Acadia National
Park in Maine, and the Florida Keys. These areas will remain clean and beautiful only if they
receive increased protection. The report therefore calls upon Congress to mandate a
meaningful and uniform federal program for the protection of pristine waters nationwide
through amendments to the Clean Water Act that would:
(1) require EPA to establish and enforce minimum requirements for state outstanding
national resource waters programs to ensure equivalency with federal classifications;
(2) require the states to identify waters eligible for designation and determine whether
specific waters should receive designation;
-------
Nattonal Wildlife ^ require EPA to review state programs and decisions on designating specific waters,
Federation Issues especially when the waters are in or affecting nationally designated sensitive lands
a Report such as parks, forests, wildlife refuges, recreational areas, and wilderness areas;
Waters at Risk: Keeping ^ impose an affirmative duty on federal land managers to seek designation of waters in
Clean Waters Clean or affecting their areas; and
(con inue ) ^ a^QW ci(-jzens t0 nominate specific lakes, rivers, or coastal waters for designation.
[Copies of the report may be ordered from the National Wildlife Federation, Correspondence Department at
a cost of $6.00 plus shipping and handling, by calling 1 (800) 432-6564. Questions concerning the report
itself should be directed to Stephanie Grogan, National Wildlife Federation, Resource Conservation
Department, Environmental Quality Division, at (202) 797-6898.]
USGS Reports on Fertilizers and
Pesticides in Delmarva Groundwater
A report on nitrate and pesticides in the groundwater of the Delmarva Peninsula of Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia was released at the end of May by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
Department of the Interior.
This report, USGS Circular 1080, is the first in a series of general interest publications that the
USGS plans to release on findings from the USGS National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQ A) program. The reports are designed to increase public awareness of the importance of
water quality and to aid decision-makers at all levels of government on water-quality issues
that affect human life and health and the health of the nation's natural resources.
According to the report, elevated concentrations of nitrate are found at all depths in the
water-table aquifer (the aquifer closest to the surface) but are not found in the deeper confined
aquifers that are the chief source of public water supplies on the peninsula.
"Fifteen percent of the samples from the water-table aquifer contained nitrate concentrations
that exceed the level set for safe drinking water," said Pixie A. Hamilton, hydrologist and
principal author of the report.
Pesticides generally were not found in the parts of the water-table aquifer that are commonly
used for water supply. Only four samples in the entire project area had pesticide concentrations
in excess of the drinking water standards. These results suggest that the human health risk from
pesticides in groundwater is minimal in most of the Delmarva Peninsula at this time.
The report was written by USGS hydrologists with assistance from an advisory group of about
20 representatives from federal, state, and local agencies and university programs involved with
water resources or agriculture.
"Applications of lime, commercial fertilizer, and manure have changed the natural quality of
groundwater in the water-table aquifer in a large part of the peninsula," said Hamilton. "Nitrate
from fertilizers has become one of the major dissolved constituents in shallow groundwater in
agricultural areas, which cover nearly 50 percent of the land area on the peninsula," explained
Hamilton.
"Nitrate concentrations exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water
established by the U.S. EPA in about 15 percent of nearly 300 groundwater samples collected
from the water-table aquifer from 1980 to 1990," said Hamilton.
Less than one percent of the samples from the deeper aquifers exceeded the MCL for nitrate.
However, the potential movement of groundwater with high nitrate concentration in the
water-table aquifer to the deeper aquifers is a concern in the project area.
According to the EPA, the MCL is the maximum permissible level of contaminant in water that
is delivered to any user of a public water system. MCLs are based on health effects, techniques
for analyzing and treating contaminants, and costs associated with compliance. The value of the
MCL for nitrate is 10 milligrams per liter as nitrogen (or 44 milligrams per liter as nitrate).
In contrast to nitrate, 94 percent of the detections for pesticides were at concentrations below the
MCL values established by EPA as of November 1990.
The samples were tested for about 40 different pesticides, including most agricultural pesticides
used in the project area.
Most of the pesticides detected were herbicides used on corn or soybeans. The concentrations
detected were mainly in samples collected from wells in the upper 20 feet of the water-table
aquifer at sites near farmland.
-------
USGS Reports on The repOrt aiso notes that the quality of shallow groundwater in the Delmarva Peninsula
Fertilizers ana affects the quality of surface water. For example, groundwater with elevated nitrate
Pesticides in Delmarva concentrations discharges into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries and is probably a
Groundwater significant source of nutrients to the ecosystem of the bay.
Ongoing changes in crop-management practices will probably reduce the amount of nitrate
that moves from the soil to the groundwater and may eventually reduce nitrate concentrations
in surface water. Because of the slow flow rates of groundwater, however, improvements in
water quality may lag behind changes in agricultural practices by years or decades.
"This report is a product of a USGS assessment of groundwater quality in the Delmarva
Peninsula," according to Robert J. Shedlock, hydrologist and chief of the Delmarva Peninsula
project. The Delmarva Peninsula is one of seven pilot project areas in the nationwide NAWQA,
which began in 1986.
NAWQA is designed to develop an improved understanding of the status and trends in the
quality of a large part of the nation's groundwater and surface water resources. Information
from NAWQA will address specific water-quality concerns relevant to policymakers and
managers at all levels of government. The full scale NAWQA program began in 1991 with the
selection of 20 additional projects and will eventually include 60 projects that will cover a large
part of the United States.
The interagency communication and cooperation that were fostered during the pilot projects
will continue in the full-scale NAWQA program. Each of the 20 new projects has formed an
advisory group similar to the one formed for the Delmarva Peninsula project.
As the nation's largest agency dealing with science and information about water resources, the
USGS routinely monitors the quantity and quality of the nation's surface and groundwater
resources. Measurements are made at more than 45,000 sites across the nation in cooperation
with more than 1,000 federal, state, and local agencies.
[Published as USGS Circular 1080, single copies of the report, entitled "Are Fertilizers and Pesticides in the
Ground Water?A Case Study of the Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware. Maryland and Virginia," by P. A.
Hamilton and R J. Shedlock, are available at no charge from the USGS Books and Open-File Section,
Denver Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225.]
Audubon's America Conservation Project and 1992
National Wetlands Protection Awards Announced
At a reception hosted by Congressman Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.), a major new landscape
conservation project was launched, "Audubon's America," cooperatively sponsored by the
National Audubon Society and EPA's Wetlands Division.
A descriptive brochure developed by the National Audubon Society has this to say about the
project:
The purpose of Audubon's America is to protect, conserve, restore, enhance, and interpret the
natural and cultural resource values of the land and water areas where John James Audubon
lived, traveled, wrote, painted, and observed. This will be accomplished by recognizing and
establishing a system of connected public and privately owned natural areas within a 34-state
region.
The network will grow through the voluntary long-term coordinated efforts of local, state, and
federal governments, private organizations, and landowners who will prepare and implement
landscape conservation plans.
Audubon's America will be developed to commemorate John James Audubon's past and to use
his work as an inspiration to influence the future use of our natural and cultural resources. The
theme of commemorating Audubon's work and experiences will be used to organize, recognize,
and coordinate a series of local initiatives that will raise the pubic's awareness of the need to
protect wetlands and other natural resources, encourage local action, and help develop an
appreciation of the nation's natural heritage.
A series of workshops, organized as a part of the National Audubon Society's Save Our
Wetlands campaign, will be used to begin the project. Technical and financial assistance will be
provided by other government agencies and private funding sources.
The reception, held at the Rayburn House Office Building at the end of May, also served to
launch American Wetlands Month and to honor 1992 National Wetlands Protection award
winners.
-------
Audubon's America
Conservation Project
and 1992
National Wetlands
Protection Awards
Announced
(continued)
New Jersey ecologist Ralph E. Good received the National Wetlands Lifetime Achievement
Award posthumously for his innovative work in wetland protection. He established a research
station in the New Jersey Pinelands.
North Dakota Governor George A. Sinner received a special award for his public policy
leadership in wetlands protection that resulted in North Dakota's 1987 no-net-loss-of-wetlands
law and the state wetlands management committee.
Other award winners included Henry N. Barkhausen, director of Citizens to Save the Cache
River in Jonesboro, HI.; Kenneth F. Bailey, wetlands program manager, Division of State Lands,
Salem, Ore.; and David G. Burke, Nontidal Wetlands Division chief for the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources in Annapolis.
Steve Gordon, senior program manager for the Lane Council of Governments in Eugene, Ore.;
Ray McCormick, a farmer from Vincennes, Ind.; and Ross Murphy, director of the Deep Fork
Wetlands Coalition in Tulsa, Okla., were also honored.
The reception was sponsored by the Environmental Law Institute's National Wetlands
newsletter and the Terrene Institute.
[For further information on Audubon's America, contact: EPA's Wetlands Protection Hotline at
1-800-832-7828; Wetlands Division, U.S. EPA, (A-104F), 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460; or the
National Audubon Society, Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, 1104 Femwood Avenue, Suite 300, Camp Hill, PA
17011; Phone: (717) 763-4985.]
Three Water Projects Included in 1992
EPA Administrator's Awards for Excellence
EPA Administrator William K. Reilly's awards program recognizes excellence in efforts to
work toward a cleaner environment. The 1992 program focused on outstanding achievements
in pollution prevention and included three water projects one point source and two
nonpoint source. Recipients included two local government units and a state university. The
awards and their projects were:
County Sanitation District of Orange County, California, Pollution Prevention
Program: As a result of the Orange County District's Pollution Prevention Program, the
quantity of industrial wastewater flow tributary to the district's sewerage system has been
reduced by 50 percent. The reduction in toxics has been so effective that for the last three years,
the influent heavy metals have met the district's National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System standards without benefit of treatment. Implementation of the program has also
resulted in over 95 percent of the metal finishers and federally regulated industries installing
flow restrictors or control valves to reduce wastewater usage, or installing basic waste
minimization equipment to reduce the volume of hazardous wastes and wastewater
discharged to the district's sewerage system.
Bourne, Plymouth, and Wareham Planning Boards, Massachusetts, Buttermilk Bay
Nitrogen Overlay Protection District: The towns of Bourne, Plymouth, and Wareham share
the drainage area to a shallow coastal embayment, Buttermilk Bay, which is part of the larger
Buzzards Bay estuary in southeastern Massachusetts. Nitrogen levels in Buttermilk Bay are
increasing, and some localized areas are already experiencing nuisance conditions
characterized by excess algae growths. The pollution prevention goal was to limit the amount
of nitrogen to that which the bay could assimilate without harming the delicate ecosystem and
denying beneficial uses. After determining that the expected development pattern would
overextend the bay's nitrogen carrying capacity, the towns changed zoning in the drainage area
and formed the first Nitrogen Overlay District in the nation. (See News-Notes #21, page 21, for a
review of a video on the Buzzards Bay and Buttermilk Bay situation.)
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Pollution Prevention: The Virginia Tech Department of Agriculture Engineering is committed
to the agricultural nonpoint source pollution component of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort.
The program goals have been advanced through numerous research, demonstration, and
technology projects. In cooperation with state and federal agencies, interdisciplinary teams of
research and extension personnel, citizen action organizations, and the agricultural community,
the Department of Agriculture Engineering is making a strong contribution to the state's, and
the nation's, commitment to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
_ ____ -
-------
Utah State University/Utah Extension Create New
Watershed/Riparian Extension Specialist Job
The Utah Extension Service may be the first in the nation to have created a position that has as
its main focus enhancing surface water quality and riparian area management. Watershed/
Riparian Extension Specialist Dr. Thomas L. Schmidt started in April 1992 with his initial goals
being to:
(1) provide technical assistance and expertise on watershed/riparian issues to public land
managers, county agents and state extension specialists, federal and state agency
personnel, and watershed user groups;
(2) act in a liaison capacity to coordinate riparian and water quality management among
commodity producers and environmental groups; and
(3) conduct educational programs on the importance of riparian areas for enhancing
water quality and providing other amenities such as high quality recreation and
wildlife habitat.
The unique position grew out of Utah State University's (USU) recognition of how important
watersheds and riparian areas are for overall environmental health. Water quality was
recognized as being one of the primary management goals for natural resources, but the
specifics of riparian area management were generally addressed through existing specialists.
USU realized that future land management actions will be approved and evaluated based
initially on their impacts on water quality. As a result, USU, in conjunction with Utah
Extension Service, created the position.
Schmidt said that an additional goal for him is to demonstrate the potential for similar
programs in other states. "There are tremendous opportunities for Extension-related activities
to deal directly with watershed/riparian area management issues in all 50 states. It is a matter
of developing the program to fit the specific needs of each state."
EDITOR'S NOTE: Dr. Schmidt has advised News-Notes that because this is a relatively new position, he is
looking for watershed/riparian area-related brochures, guides, circulars, etc., designed for general au-
diences. If any of our readers have produced, or have available, examples of these types of publica-
tions, he would appreciate receiving copies. In addition, if you are interested in being involved in the
development of similar publications and projects, please contact him. He may be reached by mail or
phone: Thomas L. Schmidt, Watershed/Riparian Extension Specialist, College of Natural Resources,
Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5240. Phone: (801) 750-4036.
New Water Quality Standards Video Stresses Economics
A new video, Economic Considerations in Water Quality Standards, has been released by the EPA
Office of Water's Office of Science and Technology. The 15-minute video focuses on the
economic factors that are considered in the water quality standards process. The video
discusses why economics may be considered, describes where in the process economics are
considered, and discusses how economic considerations are used.
[This video is available for loan and may be obtained by calling Frances A. Desselle at (202) 260-1320.]
News From The States
Wisconsin Extension's Six Building Blocks
for Volunteer Programs
The University of Wisconsin-Madison has developed a plan for volunteer programs in water
quality. The foundation of the plan is based on six principles or building blocks.
In the March/April issue of Keeping Current, Sara M. Steele and Cathaleen Finley of
UW-Madison concluded that drawbacks in time needed to find and train volunteers are
outweighed by multiple advantages:
Volunteers can reach people that agency staff may not.
By their skills and numbers, volunteers can broaden the effectiveness of a project.
Volunteers build community support for projects and for the agencies involved.
-------
Wisconsin Extension's
Six Building Blocks
for Volunteer
Programs
(continued)
By helping volunteers build skills important to protecting water quality, a project
can help a community increase its long-term capacity to deal with water quality
concerns.
According to Steele and Finley, the building blocks make the time and effort expended in
developing volunteer programs worth the effort and are effective in both large and small
programs. They note, "Like many activities, the potential of a watershed project volunteer
program grows in proportion to the effort made to learn from the experience of others."
Six Building Blocks For a .Successful Volunteer Program
1. Program and Staff Commitment The program must at all levels acknowledge that
volunteers have something to contribute. This can be encouraged through actively seeking
roles for volunteers in a project and by recognizing and rewarding attempts at volunteer
program development; providing in-service education on working with volunteers;
building roles for volunteers into annual plans of work; providing staff with the
opportunity to share experiences they have had with volunteers; and providing the
assistance of a specialist who focuses on volunteerism.
2. Recruitment Strategy - This entails developing a volunteer job description and
considering where to look for potential volunteers.
3. Communicating Effectiveness Formal or informal assessments of achievement are
important to uncover problems and to help volunteers know that others view the work as
effective.
4. Enjoyment Enjoyment is important when people are volunteers. This is achieved
through both social interaction and a pleasant working environment. It is important to set a
congenial climate and to find tactful ways of handling problems.
5. Personal Development Gaining knowledge and skills is an incentive for many
volunteers. By providing opportunities for personal development, project staff help
volunteers to be better equipped to carry out their task. They also help develop people who
can take then1 own initiative to protect water quality in the future.
6. Shared Ownership The commitment of volunteers to a watershed project rests in part
on their feeling that they "own" part of it. Staff members working with volunteers need to
acknowledge the shared ownership and be willing to share coordination and management
tasks. For example, citizen advisory committees have a greater sense of shared ownership
when they are given responsibility to decide how often to meet, to chair meetings, and to
set the agenda.
According to Steele, the building blocks are based on experiences from the National Impact
Study of Volunteerism in Extension.
[For a complete copy of the "Six Building Blocks For a Successful Volunteer Program," contact Keeping
Current, Environmental Resources Center, Room 216 Agricultural Hall, 1450 Linden Drive, Madison, Wl
53706. Phone: (608) 262-1916.]
Kansas Economists Report Young Farmers and
Large Corporate Farms Most Likely to Invest in Conservation
Kansas State University agricultural economists have found that conservation improvements
were more likely on farms with relatively young operators and on large corporate crop farms
in the 1980s. The likelihood of conservation expenditures increased with farm size.
"Conservation investment in terraces, windbreaks, land leveling, waterways, or lagoons
varied based on farm characteristics," said ag economist Allen Featherstone, one of the
researchers.
The research team correlated various Kansas farm and farm operator characteristics with
conservation investment. "Corporate farms were 5.3 percent more likely to invest than were
sole-proprietor farms. And the likelihood of investment increased with the size of the
household," Featherstone said. The researchers also found that farms receiving direct
government program payments were more likely to invest in conservation and that
conservation investment fell each year during the 1980s. There was a high correlation between
government cost-sharing programs and investment in conservation.
To ' ~~ ~~~
-------
Kansas Economists Other stud findings inciuded:
Report Young Farmers
and Large Corporate Crop farms were more likely to invest in conservation than were operations that
Farms Most Likely to were crop/livestock or primarily livestock.
Invest in Conservation m Corporate farms' conservation expenditures were more than double those of
(continued) sole-proprietor farms.
Older farmers had lower levels of investment in conservation technologies.
More highly capitalized farms were more likely to make conservation improvements.
Farms that rented land had lower levels of conservation investment.
Higher levels of debt increased the probability and expected level of conservation
investment.
The likelihood of a farm's investing in conservation improvements dropped by 8.6 percent
from 1981 to 1989. The average investment was $114 in 1989, down from $380 (in 1989 dollars)
in 1981. Nearly 17 percent of the expenditures on conservation were made in 1981; only 6
percent in 1989. The average cost of each investment was $1,815. Nearly 26 percent of 14,463
Kansas Farm Management Association farm data sets for 1981-89 reported conservation
investments, the researchers said.
Policymakers can design more effective erosion-control programs if they correlate program
goals with likelihood of investment, Featherstone said.
"If society's goal is to get the most erosive land protected, programs may need to target
livestock operations, older farmers, and sole-proprietorship farms farmers less likely to
invest in conservation. But it may take fairly large incentives to reach these target groups. If
the goal is the most erosion protection per government dollar, programs should probably
continue to be untargeted," he said.
[For more information contact: Allen Featherstone, Agricultural Economist, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, KS 66506. Phone: (913) 532-6702.]
In Alabama, TVA Develops a Cooperative
Watershed Nonpoint Source Cleanup
EDITOR'S NOTE: This story contains an interesting piece of history, in as much as the nonpoint source
cleanup detailed here was initiated in July 1986, before ง319, the NFS section of the Clean Water Act,
became part of the law. The Bear Creek Floatway, closed in 1984, was reopened in August 1990. The
story documents how determined leadership can get the clean-up job done using persuasion, the re-
sources at hand, and the cooperation of land management agencies. The story was prepared by Gary
Springston of TVA.
Between 1969 and 1978, TVA constructed four earthen dams in the Bear Creek watershed of
northwest Alabama. The purposes of these dams were flood control, water supply, and
recreation. Associated with the project was development of a section of Bear Creek
immediately downstream of Upper Bear Creek Dam for Whitewater recreation. This section is
known as the Bear Creek Floatway.
The floatway is a 25-mile reach of Bear Creek between Upper Bear Creek Dam and the
headwaters of the Bear Creek Reservoir. At flows greater than 150 cubic feet per second (cfs),
the floatway is physically suited for Whitewater recreation such as rafting and canoeing.
The Bear Creek Floatway was closed to recreational use in 1984 because of high fecal coliform
concentrations. TVA was requested by Congress to determine the causes of contamination and
to undertake corrective actions that would allow the floatway to be reopened.
A watershed pollution inventory indicated that several wastewater dischargers were
impacting the floatway. The wastewater treatment plant in Haleyville, Alabama, was
consistently violating its NPDES limits because of overloading. The package wastewater
treatment plant at Phillips High School in Bear Creek, Alabama was discharging virtually
untreated waste because of hydraulic overload and poor operation and maintenance.
However, the inputs from these point sources did not completely explain the high level of
bacterial contamination seen in the floatway.
TVA used aerial photographs and ground-truthing to locate and quantify the nonpoint sources
of pollution in the watershed. Livestock operations were found to be the primary source of
11
-------
In Alabama, TVA
Develops a Cooperative
Watershed Nonpoint
Source Cleanup
(continued)
bacterial contamination. Results from this inventory were used to identify those livestock
operations having the greatest impact on water quality in the floatway.
The prevalent animal operations in the floatway watershed were swine, poultry, and
unconfinedbeef cattle operations. Although the livestock operations were small in size as
compared to the national average, the manner by which they were operated directly
contributed to bacterial contamination of the floatway.
The cooperative abatement project that resulted between TVA, SCS, and. ASCS involved cleaning
up both the priority point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The ASCS provided an established
mechanism for providing cost-share assistance. County administrators for the ASCS
administered the waste management contracts with each landowner and arranged for payment
of cost-share monies. Payment of cost-share monies was made after invoices were submitted to
the ASCS by the landowner and approved by TVA as legitimate installation expenses.
TVA supplied the ASCS with money to make cost-share payments to landowners. Waste
management system designs submitted by the SCS were reviewed by TVA and approved
before construction was initiated. TVA also implemented a water quality monitoring program
and an education and inspection program to track water quality improvements and system
operation.
The SCS designed the waste;management systems and supervised their installation. This
involved determining the problem and its magnitude, designing the most effective waste
management system, supervising the installation of the system, and certifying the completion
of the system.
Realizing that the effectiveness of a pollution clean-up program depended on its compatibility
with individual farming operations, each system was specifically designed to meet the needs
of each particular farm.
Clean-up Priorities Set
After individual landowners signed up to participate in the cost-share program, SCS and
district officials inspected the operations to view the, waste management problems. Based on
this inspection and results of aerial analyses, each operation was assigned a priority ranking
(high, medium, low). The installation of waste management systems was then targeted to
those sites with the highest priority.
The swine waste problems were corrected by relocating the operation from the streambanks to
a pasture away from the stream. State-of-the-art farrowing and finishing houses were
constructed, with the water supply coming from a spring development or drilled well. Waste
from the houses were flushed into two-cell lagoons that could later be used for fertilization.
Rotational grazing pastures were developed around the houses to keep the vegetative cover
from becoming permanently denuded on any one area.
The cattle waste problems were corrected by fencing the streams to prevent access and
developing a water supply either in the form of spring developments or a drilled well.
Strategically located watering troughs ensured that the cattle did not have to travel long
distances for water. In those areas where runoff was a problem, ponds were constructed to
intercept any runoff before it entered local streams.
The poultry waste problems were corrected by installing underground concrete disposal pits
for the dead birds and constructing covered drystacks for stockpiling waste products.
The priority agricultural nonpoint sources in the floatway watershed were controlled by
installing 140 animal waste management systems on 50 farms. The cost for installing these
systems was $1,164,122.06 ($919,865.96 TVA cost and $244,256.10 landowner cost).
On August 9,1990, the floatWay was reopened to recreation after water quality monitoring
indicated it was safe for recreational use. The reopening concluded a successful nonpoint
source water quality improvement project in which many agencies and individuals played a
vital role.
The cost to clean up the pollution sites in the floatway was $1.2 million dollars or one-fifth the
cost for cleaning up a comparable amount of domestic waste. The targeted watershed
approach for identifying high priority pollution sites helped make it economical to control
these nonpoint sources of pollution.
12
-------
In Alabama, TVA Lessons Learned
'Jevelops a Cooperative - .
Watershed Nonpoint Several conclusions regarding watershed management and control of nonpoint sources of
Source Cleanup pollution are apparent from the Bear Creek experience.
(continued) (1) Participation by land management agencies, water quality specialists, and local
interests is required. This participation is needed to economically address nonpoint
sources of pollution, improve water quality, and restore beneficial uses.
(2) Many nonpoint sources of pollution can be controlled at a cost significantly less than
that which is routinely spent to treat point sources. In addition, substantial benefits
may result if the right areas are targeted.
(3) Even though the cost of controlling nonpoint sources is low in comparison to point
source and potential benefits exist, implementation will not happen without either
regulations, incentives, or a combination of both.
(4) To ensure that corrective actions are for the greatest benefit to water quality, it is
critical that monitoring be related to the objective or water use and that it be carried
out before, during, and after implementation.
(5) Monitoring alone is not sufficient for determining watershed management needs. A
complete pollution source inventory that focuses on the specific objective parameters
impairing water quality or use is needed.
(6) One problem in nonpoint source pollution and watershed management is trying to
look at everything. Corrective efforts that take into account technical, geographical,
and economical factors, must be targeted to the specific objective.
(7) Because nonpoint source pollution control projects are so complex, success will not be
achieved without partners and public support.
(8) No nonpoint source program will have long-term success without a proper operation
and maintenance program.
[For further information, contact: Gary L Springston, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, HB
2C, Chattanooga, TN 37402. Phone: (615) 751-7336.]
South Carolina Implements Statewide
Stormwater Management Regulations
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article is based on an article in the June 1992 issue of The Nonpoint
Source, the nonpoint source pollution control newsletter for South Carolina, published by the S.C. Land
Resources Commission, funded in part by a U.S. EPA grant from the S.C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control.
With the approval of a set of Stormwater management regulations, South Carolina took the
final step in implementing the State Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Act.
The act, signed into law in May 1991, charges the Land Resources Commission to develop a
state Stormwater management and sediment control program. In addition to the rules and
regulations, the program includes education, technical assistance, research, design,
construction, and public involvement. This act does not regulate activities of the SC
Department of Highways and Public Transport (DHPT). However, rules and regulations for
the 1984 Erosion and Sediment Control Act have been amended to require DHPT to develop
site-specific erosion/sediment control and Stormwater management plans to be included in
their bid packages. Amendments will also require DHPT to submit all plans to the Land
Resources Commission for prior approval.
The act calls for the Land Resources Commission to develop a Stormwater management and
sediment reduction program that will apply statewide. Activities on the coast will be
coordinated with the SC Coastal Council. According to Flint Holbrook, P.E., chief of the
Stormwater management section, there are two key design considerations applying to
two-year, 24-hour and 10-year, 24-hour design storms: (1) Post-development runoff rates must
be equivalent to pre-development runoff rates, and (2) sediment controls must demonstrate 80
percent trapping efficiency or meet a .5 ml/L peak settable solid concentration in effluent
based on 10-year design storms. Agricultural and forestry activities are not covered by the act,
nor are other activities that are already covered by other regulations.
All land disturbing activities covered by the act and regulations will require an approved
Stormwater management and sediment control plan.
13
-------
South Carolina
Implements Statewide
Stormwater
Management
Regulations
(continued)
Conservation districts are authorized to review and comment on plans. Local governments
may contract with conservation districts, councils of government, or others to implement the
program. If a local government does not wish to establish a local program, the conservation
district may administer the state program. If neither is the case, the Land Resources
Commission will administer the program.
Incidents of property damage and water pollution from stormwater runoff are on the rise in
urban areas as more land is developed. The regulations are being welcomed by homeowners
throughout the state who have no wish to see their homes flooded, their property values
plummet, and their health and safety threatened by flooding from uncontrolled stormwater.
Stormwater runoff is one of the least recognized threats to land and waterbodies. Beyond the
obvious flooding problems, stormwater can carry harmful pollutants such as fertilizers,
pesticides, oil, grease, urban litter, and other materials, and contaminate surface water and
groundwater that supply the water we drink. "The Commission commends Governor
Campbell and the South Carolina General Assembly for their timely action in adopting this
important legislation," said Commission Executive Director John W. Parris.
[For further information, contact: Flint Holbrook, Chief, P.E., Stormwater Management, SC Land Resources
Commission, 221 Devine Street, Suite 222, Columbia, SC 29205. Phone: (803) 734-9100. FAX: (803)
734-9200.]
Notes on The Coastal Environment
State Growth Management Act Requires Localities
to Draft Growth Plans to Protect Puget Sound Water
The state of Washington is taking the initiative in protecting coastal water quality. The Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority's bimonthly Sound Waves reported recently on guidelines to
help local governments develop policies for planning growth management and protecting
water quality. The 12 counties bordering the Puget Sound were to have submitted policy
statements by July 1,1992. Most have complied at this time.
The local policy statements were part of a process required by the Growth Management Act,
and the guidelines are based on the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. In the
next step required under theiact, localities must submit comprehensive plans based on their
policy statements by July 1,1993.
Sound Waves listed the following as suggested elements in local planning policies:
1. Cooperate in protecting water quality within a watershed.
* Each jurisdiction should define necessary protection actions based on its own
needs as well as the overall needs of the watershed region.
2. Protect, maintain, and improve water quality at commercial and recreational shellfish beds so
shellfish are safe to eat.
Control pollution from both potential and existing sources.
Establish shellfish protection districts to restore and protect shellfish beds from
pollution threats.
3. Maintain and increase wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat function and acreage.
Preserve and restore wetlands and other habitats.
Provide and protect open space.
Control development density and location using innovative land-use techniques,
such as transfer of development rights programs.
Regulate new development.
Educate the public.
4. Identify priority waterslieds.
Develop and implement nonpoint pollution watershed action plans.
Integrate watershed plans into local comprehensive plans.
14 : :
-------
Sfate Growth
Management Act
Requires Localities
to Draft Growth Plans to
Protect Puget Sound
Water
(continued)
5. Reduce and generally eliminate harm to water quality from stormwater runoff and combined
sewer overflows.
Implement on-site BMPs.
Control development density and location.
Preserve natural stream corridors and buffers.
Develop and maintain a system of stormwater retention and detention facilities.
6. Coordinate water quality monitoring and database management interlocally and with state
agencies.
Use common protocols.
7. Address industrial and commercial discharge treatment.
Use regionally consistent requirements for industrial and commercial discharge
pretreatment.
Guide potential new indirect dischargers to locations with appropriate sewer
service.
8. Coordinate with state programs to locate and manage confined and unconfined dredged
material disposal sites.
9. Involve the public.
Increase community awareness of the importance of water quality protection.
Involve the public in water quality planning and implementation strategies.
10. Concentrate urban land uses in existing urban areas to prevent degradation of water quality in
rural areas.
[For more information, contact Gretchen Hanna, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, PO Box 40900,
Olympia, WA 98504-0900. Phone: (800) 54-SOUND]
Agricultural Notes
Utah Forum Considers Livestock Grazing
as a Sustainable Agriculture Practice
EDITOR'S NOTE: In recent months News-Notes has had several articles concerning grazing, the environ-
ment, and water quality in the west, particularly on the public lands. To add to this important continuing
dialogue, the following article is reprinted, with permission, from Your Water, the official publication of
the Utah Nonpoint Source Task Force, published on a quarterly basis. The NPS Task Force Executive
Committee is represented by the following: Utah Department of Agriculture (Commissioner Miles 'Cap'
Ferry, Chair of the Task Force); USDA-Soil Conservation Service; Utah Department of Environmental
Quality; and Utah State University-Extension Service.
"I think as long as we keep talking, there's hope," said Lorin Moench, a sheep rancher in
Summit County and one of 12 panelists who considered the issue of livestock grazing on the
public land in a recent public forum.
The idea behind the forum was to help end polarized thinking about this issue and increase
understanding between ranchers and environmentalists. The desire to work together was
echoed by many of the panelists.
"Neither side has the answer. I think together we can come to a solution," said Ed Marsten,
editor of the High Country News. "I look at ranching as the most hopeful area for cooperation
between the environment and commodities," Marsten added.
While the panelists agreed that any solution starts with a meaningful dialogue and increasing
understanding, there was some disagreement over range condition.
Ken Boyer, with the Bureau of Land Management, said the range condition on BLM land has
improved in recent decades, but Melissa Blackwell, district ranger for the U.S. Forest Service,
said the range condition in much of the Unita Mountains area she monitors is good in the
upland areas but unsatisfactory in the riparian areas (the green, sub-irrigated areas near
streams, lakes and springs, and seeps).
15
-------
Utah Forum Considers DOC Hadfield, a rancher from Oregon who was on the panel as a rancher who uses innovative
Livestock Grazing rangeland management techniques, said in order to repair riparian areas people must first
as a Sustainable agree on what makes up good riparian health. Hadfield suggested one definition might be
Agriculture Practice baby willows living along side teenage willows and middle-aged willows.
(continued) Anotner issue that brought out disagreement is what would happen if livestock were
completely taken off the public range. Blackwell and Gray McFarlane, of the Utah Wilderness
Alliance, maintained the condition of all the range, but particularly the riparian areas, would
improve dramatically. Gary Briggs, of the USDA Soil Conservation Service, disagreed with
that assessment. He said there would be an immediate but shortlived improvement. Initially,
he said, grasses that help the soil absorb water would flourish, and the range health would
improve. But the woody plants, which actually promote soil erosion and hurt range health,
would take over.
Some panelists also disagreed over the issue of wildlife and livestock on the same range.
McFarland talked about decreasing numbers of elk, coyotes and other species of wildlife, but
David Pace, a part-time rancher from southern Utah, and a resource coordinator for the Utah
Association of Conservation Districts, said he sees elk and coyotes on the range today, where
there were none 20 or 30 years ago. He also said the numbers of antelope and deer he sees
today have increased dramatically from when he was a boy. Pace also talked of improved
range condition during that time.
The issue of grazing fees brought many questions from the audience, as well as some
disagreement among the experts. Some people are upset that the fees are so low ($1.97 per
animal unit a month on federal land) and that tax dollars are subsidizing the rancher's jobs.
However, Pace was quick to point out that recreation and wildlife are also subsidized. And
Bruce Godfrey, an economist at Utah State University, quoted the state statistic that says it
costs more to graze the public land than the private land. Marsten said the debate over the
grazing fee is a "red herring," "You could raise the fee a factor of five, but if the condition of
the land doesn't improve it's a hollow victory."
No problems were solved by the panel. As one audience member put it, "You guys on the
panel are the good guys." The question of how to get the people on polar ends of the issue to
engage in rational dialogue is the real problem. It was apparent, however, that educational
forums are a step in the right direction.
The forum was held in Park City on May 21,1992, and was cosponsored by Park City Radio
Station KPCW and the Utah Chapter of the League of Women Voters.
[For further information, contact: Karil Froebose, Utah Chapter, League of Women Voters. Phone: (801)
649-3968.]
Farm*A*Syst Program Sweeping Country
A recent study shows 80 percent of the states have started, or plan to start, state-level
Farm*A*Syst programs, the groundwater assessment tool, reports Jerry Griswold, Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) Coordinator, in the May 1992 issue of Farmstead Pollution
Prevention Update.
Farm*A*Syst uses a series of questionnaires and fact sheets to help farmers and rural residents
assess their farmstead structures, soil geology, and management practices. In an easy-to-use
format, these materials provide a mechanism for farmers and rural residents to assess
pollution risks associated with their farmsteads and home sites and to take decisive action to
preserve the quality of their drinking water.
Results of the survey conducted by the national joint USD A-EPA Farm* A*Syst staff, Madison,
WI, revealed that 40 states have started their own programs or are planning activities within
the next 18 months. Of that group, 19 states have already initiated programs.
The survey was sent to Extension Service, SCS, and state lead water quality agencies in each
state early in March. The national staff reports that responses were evenly distributed among
all agencies, with most states providing responses from more than one agency.
The national program staff provides guidelines and educational support to states interested in
starting their own Farm*A*Syst programs. The program is jointly supported by EPA, USD A's
Extension Service and Soil Conservation Service. The national staff is headquartered at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
16
-------
Farm*A*Syst Program
Sweeping Country
(continued)
The national staff provides assistance to states interested in starting the program, providing
basic packets of worksheets and fact sheets at a cost of $12.00 each, plus shipping.
Word-processed versions of the Wisconsin packet that states can edit on disk costs $25.00, plus
shipping. Contact the national staff for details on ordering.
News-Notes issues #9, #16, and #18 carried items about the development and distribution of the
Farm*A*Syst program.
[For more information contact: Jerry Griswold, SCS Coordinator, Gary W. Jackson, ES Coordinator, or
Susan A. Jones, EPA Coordinator, Farm'A*Syst Program, B142 Steenbock, 550 Babcock Drive Madison
Wl 53706-1293. Phone: (608) 262-0024. FAX: (608) 265-2775.]
National Livestock, Poultry, and Aquaculture
Waste Management Workshop Proceedings Published
These are the proceedings of a national workshop organized to discuss issues relating to water
quality and animal waste management. Growth and concentration of the livestock, poultry,
and aquaculture industries have resulted in large volumes of waste that must be used in an
environmentally sound manner. A cornerstone was laid in the workshop to define problems
and solutions that will help ensure the soundness of our national resources.
The workshop, held July 29-31,1991, at Kansas City, MO, was a cooperative effort of
USDA-Extension Service, universities, state and national organizations, related agribusiness,
and aUied industries. Cosponsors included USDA's SCS and Agriculture Research Service; U.S.
EPA; Tennessee Valley Authority, and Michigan State University, Department of Animal
Science.
The proceedings are a valuable reference for all who are concerned with animal waste
management and water quality. They include a series of priority nominations on educational,
research, and technical assistance requirements developed by the attendees at the workshop,
as well as a listing of potential solutions and opportunities. Commodity groups identified
potential barriers and constraints encountered in dealing with water quality issues.
The proceedings were published by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
[For copies of the proceedings, contact the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2950 Niles Rd.
St. Joseph, Ml 49085-9659. Phone: (616)429-0300 ext. 41. Cost $45.00, plus handling $3.50, ASAE;
members $37.00, plus handling. Order No. PO392.]
Video Explains How and Why to Seal Abandoned Wells
Some old wells may pose a health, safety, or financial threat to owners. Since they are a direct
pipeline to groundwater, unused old wells also carry the risk of transporting contaminants
into the water supply. Often, the best fate for an old well is proper "abandonment."
A new 20-minute video, Proper Well Abandonment Techniques: How To Fill and Seal a Well,
explains how to properly abandon the three major types of wells: dug, driven, and drilled. The
video explains why old wells are risky, and it discusses water quality issues, health and safety,
property values, and liability. It also helps well owners assess their wells and make informed
decisions as to whether or not they will need a contractor's assistance to properly fill and seal
the well. '
It is targeted for well owners, both urban and rural. But it is also full of practical information
and is a great training tool for municipal water departments, community officials, contractors,
well drillers, conservationists, elected officials, and policymakers.
The video is a joint effort of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Wisconsin Cooperative
Extension Service, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the National Farm
Medicine Center in Marshfield, Wisconsin.
[Copies may be purchased through Golden Sands Resource Conservation and Development Council,
UW-Stevens Point, Nelson Hall, Stevens Point, Wl 54481. Phone: (715) 346-3161. Cost $15.00, which'
includes shipping and handling. In Wisconsin, copies of the video are also available for loan from county
Cooperative Extension offices, SCS offices, DA//?, and the Wisconsin Rural Water Association.]
-------
Notes on Riparian & Watershed Management
Oregon State University Produces
Audio-Visual Program on Forest Riparian Areas
Forest managers are increasingly recognizing the importance of riparian areas as critical
elements of sound forest and water quality management. These areas provide habitat for both
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and are highly valued recreation sites. Riparian areas also
provide water quality protection functions and reduce the effects of forest management
activities on surrounding uplands. Sound management of riparian areas is an essential part of
any watershed-level protection or management program.
An Oregon State University College of Forestry audio-visual program, Managing Riparian Areas
on Forest Lands, provides an overview of the functions and values of forest riparian areas and
discusses the appropriate types of forest management activities needed to maintain them.
This program focuses on riparian area conditions in the Pacific Northwest, but natural
resource professionals in other regions will also find it of interest, since many of the riparian
area attributes and management considerations are similar.
The 28-minute program is available in either video or slide (with cassette soundtrack) format.
The purchase price is $130, or the program may be rented for $25 for five days. When ordering,
please specify VHS video transfer #987-V-T or slide-tape #987-S-T.
[For more information or to order, contact: Forest Media Center, Oregon State University, Peavy Hall,
Room 248, Corvallis, OR 97331-5702. Phone: (503) 737-4702.]
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region,
Initiates Forestry BMP Evaluation Program
EDITOR'S NOTE: In an innovative action, the U.S. Forest Service's Pacific Southwest Region (FS Region
5) has developed and is now implementing an ongoing program to evaluate the effectiveness of for-
estry BMPs in protecting the official state-designated beneficial uses of water in the national forests in
California.
The story below was prepared by the USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, for Forest Ser-
vice personnel in the region to explain the concept behind the new program and how it is intended to
operate. It is reprinted here by News-Notes to let the rest of the country know how seriously other fed-
eral agencies are taking the clean water mandates of federal law.
We believe that similar BMP evaluations, rigorously designed and applied, can and should be devel-
oped for urban, agriculture, mining, and other categories of nonpoint source pollution. Editorially, we
applaud the USDA-Forest Service Region 5 for its initiative and wisdom.
Best management practices are a continuous loop of implementation, monitoring, and
refinement. The Clean Water Act requires that BMPs be iterative processes. After initial
development and implementation, BMPs must be monitored for implementation and
effectiveness, then modified to improve their efficacy, then monitored again. BMPs are a loop,
and there is no endpoint.
In early 1989, the watershed management staff of the Pacific Southwest Region began
developing a system to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs in protecting the beneficial uses of
water. It is through the implementation of BMPs that the Forest Service is designated as the
water quality management agency on national forest lands in the Pacific Southwest Region.
(This designation was originally made under the provisions of Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. It is
still effective. - eds.)
A system of BMP evaluation has taken shape during the last two years, and is about to be
implemented throughout Region 5. The system provides detailed information on both
implementation of BMPs and BMP effectiveness.
The monitoring system is called the "Region 5 Best Management Practices Evaluation
Program" (BMPEP).
1 BMPs are procedural and structural practices approved by the state of California Water Resources Control Board and certified by the EPA
to be used by the Forest Service in planning and implementing all management activities.
__
-------
Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Region,
Initiates Forestry BMP
Evaluation Program
(continued)
The objectives of the BMP Evaluation Program are to:
Assess the degree of implementation of BMPs;
Determine which BMPs are effective;
Determine which BMPs need improvement or development;
Fulfill forest land and resource management plan BMP monitoring commitments;
and
Provide a record of performance for management of nonpoint source pollution in
Region 5.
Many people were consulted in 1989 and 1990 to determine what the BMPEP should include.
Contributing were representatives from many of the forests in California, EPA, state and
regional water quality control boards, universities, industry, and environmental groups.
Proposals were field tested in 1989 and again in 1990 on nine forests representing the wide
range of environmental conditions and management emphasis that exist on California's
national forests.
The procedures went through many revisions, based on the results of field testing and
comments from people who did the test evaluations. The procedures are refined to the point
where they yield repeatable results based on readily collected information.
The BMPEP has three primary components: Administrative Evaluations, On-Site Evaluations,
and In-Channel Evaluations.
Administrative Evaluations are broad-scale subjective assessments of multiple
BMPs at the project level. There are six different evaluations: Timber Sales and Roads,
Grazing, Prescribed Fire, Mining, Activities Under Special Use Permit, and Watershed
Restoration.
These evaluations are used to assess administrative or process BMPs such as the timber
sale planning process as well as structural or physical practices. The evaluations are
post-implementation assessments conducted by teams of reviewers to document
observations on BMP implementation and effectiveness. They will usually be
incorporated into general project or activity reviews. Though such reviews have long
been a part of Forest Service operations, the evaluations provide a focus and
documentation format to better capture and preserve information on BMPs.
On-Site Evaluations provide a means to gather objective data on the state of BMP
implementation for specific practices. The evaluations are based on actual
measurements of key criteria (ground cover, canopy closure, etc.) and ocular estimates
(presence or absence of rills, presence or absence of debris at culvert inlets, etc.). Criteria
were selected that related to the objective of the individual BMP and field tested and
refined to yield repeatable results by independent observers.
There are 28 different On-Site Evaluation Procedures; each assesses an individual or
closely related BMP. For instance, two BMPs govern water quality protection on timber
skid trails; they are assessed as one procedure. On-Site Evaluations assess timber harvest,
roads, recreation, minerals, fire, range, and vegetation management practices.
A detailed assessment of BMP implementation is also conducted. Rating implementation
involves a review of project plans, environmental assessments, and the actual practices
on-the-ground, to gauge how well the implemented practice matches what was planned.
Evaluations from randomly selected sites to test effectiveness ratings between sites where
practices were and were not implemented will be compared. Evaluations will also be
conducted at additional sites pre-selected because of their sensitivity, public interest, or
management interest.
All results will be stored in a relational database (BMP-DB)... developed in ORACLE, for
ready retrieval and query at both the forest and regional level. The database development
was complex and was achieved with the able assistance of ace programmer Steve
Mathews of the Six Rivers National Forest.
In-Channel Evaluations are measurements of selected parameters to assess the
cumulative downstream result of project BMPs in protecting beneficial uses. These
evaluations monitor condition or change in parameters indicative of the physical,
19
-------
Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Region,
Initiates Forestry BMP
Evaluation Program
(continued)
chemical, or biological nature of the stream channel. Parameters selected will be
indicators of the beneficial use most sensitive to change as a result of upstream/upslope
land management. If drinking water is the use of concern, then turbidity or
microbiological sampling might be used. If fisheries are the use of concern, parameters
might include changes in residual pool volume or substrate composition.
Each In-Channel Evaluation will be described in a monitoring plan that will detail the
selected parameters and data collection requirements, analytical techniques, and the
hypothesis to be tested. Each monitoring plan will be peer-reviewed. Comparisons will
most frequently be between stream reaches above and below the project, though
comparisons between watersheds will also be used. Each national forest in Region 5 will
have one or more In-Channel Evaluations beginning in 1992.
EachBMPEP component outlines steps to be taken in the event that poor implementation or
effectiveness are observed.
A user's guide details all procedures, provides blank evaluation forms, and documents the
storage and retrieval system: "Investigating Water Quality in the Pacific Southwest Region: Best
Management Practices Evaluation Program: A User's Guide." May 1992. USDA-Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Region. 362 pages.
[A limited number of user's guides are available for those engaged in forestry/water quality monitoring
matters. For further information, contact any of the authors: Ken Roby, USDA-Forest Service, Plumas
National Forest, Greenville, CA. Phone:(916)284-7126; John Rector, USDA-Forest Service, Regional
Office, San Francisco, CA. Phone: (415) 705-2515; Michael J. Furniss, USDA-Forest Service, Six Rivers
National Forest, Eureka, CA. Phone: (707)441-3551.]
EDITOR'S NOTE #2: This is a highly commendable move. We would like to make one observation. The
application of the BMP Evaluation Program, itself, could be approached as an iterative process. Parts
of it might be "tightened up" or made more rigorous, as experience is gained. For example, the guide-
lines for in-channel effectiveness monitoring are very broad and only recommend, initially at least, that
one application, or one monitoring project be conducted for each forest for either recreation, roads,
grazing, mining, or silviculture areas. Another example is the endpoint of assessments (the protection
of the beneficial uses of water). Applicable state water quality standards (WQS) also could be used to
define endpoints. WQS include: (1) designated beneficial uses, (2) criteria to protect uses, and (3) a
state anti-degradation policy.!If the focus is just on uses, then it is possible that those uses can be in-
terpreted by the investigator on a site-by-site, day-by-day basis with no real "criteria" to determine if
those uses are being protected or not. State water quality agencies could be invited to be on the team
that develops the in-stream monitoring plans. Thus state and forest service in-stream water quality
monitoring would be more closely integrated and mutually supportive. This would be especially valu-
able where states are strengthening their biological criteria (condition of habitat, for example) for the
evaluation of the ability of their waters to support fish and wildlife uses.*
A last comment. Through the application of this BMP evaluation program and its resultant database,
the Forest Service in California may be among the first in the nation to actually have consistent multi-
ple-project information to close the iterative loop. That is an exciting prospesct.
* See the article entitled "EPA Issues Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the
Water Quality Program," News-Notes Issue #14, July 1991.
Notes on Environmental Education
Wisconsin High School Teachers and Students
Study a Watershed and a Lake
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article was submitted to News-Notes by Paul Tweed, a biology teacher at Augusta
High School, Augusta, Wisconsin. Thank you, Paul.
Watershed Study Completed in 1991
Since the summer of 1991, teachers and students from Augusta High School in Wisconsin have
been studying nonpoint impacts on local watersheds. Stream and lake quality around the
small community of Augusta has been significantly impacted by agriculture.
In 1991, high school biology teacher Paul Tweed and four students spent the summer assessing
the water and habitat quality of a 90,880 acre watershed with six sub-watershed streams, 52
20
-------
Wisconsin High School
Teachers and Students
Study a Watershed
and a Lake
(continued)
miles of which are classified as trout streams. To do this work, Tweed had received a grant
from the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters's "Field Involvement, Research by
Science Teachers" (FIRST) program. The grant covered basic expenses of the research and a
teacher stipend.
Using the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) habitat quality index and
Hilsenhof's Biotic Index, the group surveyed all the streams and compared data with a
previous study from 1983-87. The results of this work substantiated efforts by state and local
agencies to control erosion from fields, animal stream access, and runoff from livestock waste.
Several water quality factors showed improvement from the 1986 data.
This study carries over to the classroom at Augusta High where ninth grade students study
the physical and chemical factors related to watershed quality, tenth graders investigate the
biological parameters, and eleventh and twelfth grade ecology students undertake related
research projects on the streams.
Lake Eau Claire Focus of Current Study
In the summer of 1992, Tweed was joined by a second science teacher. Jeff Hadorn, also from
Augusta High, and Tweed both qualified for grants from the Academy's FIRST program.
Twenty-two students from eighth to twelfth grades worked with the teachers throughout the
summer to collect limnological, biological, and geographical information about Lake Eau
Claire, just north of Augusta.
A reservoir on the Eau Claire River, the lake is approximately 1,100 acres and experiences
many problems related to nutrient excess and siltation. During the National Eutrophication
Survey of the 1970s, Lake Eau Claire was designated eutrophic. This condition persists in the
lake today.
Much about the lake remains to be investigated. For instance, several unexplained fish kills
have occurred over the years. One explanation that has been offered to account for the fish
kills is a sudden overturn of anoxic water in the lake. Tweed and his students are exploring
this hypothesis by monitoring lake temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO).
During the summer, teachers and students spent two to three days a week in the field and lab
collecting samples, running the tests on the desired parameters, and discussing the
implications of their findings. The teacher and student team studied water quality parameters
that included nitrogen, phosphorous, chlorophyll, DO, pH, temperature, bacteria, algae,
macrophyte populations, and water clarity.
Several students are independently investigating such issues as relative tributary input of
nutrients, algal species and their distribution, and primary productivity in the lake.
The DNR West Central District office is supporting this project from the information and
technical side. DNR Water Quality Specialist Buzz Sorge worked with the teachers and
continues to help refine and monitor the project. "Without the help of the DNR and Buzz
Sorge, we would be at quite a disadvantage in framing this investigation." says Hadorn.
The group is also mapping the lake for the first time since 1960. Local engineering firms have
volunteered equipment and personnel to help set up a system that can track siltation in the
lake over the next few years. The research group will develop both topographical and
three-dimensional maps of the basin for use in further studies.
Throughout the school year, the data collected during the summer will be brought into the
classroom for projects by Tweed's advanced classes. While students write up parts of the
project for possible presentation at student conferences, Tweed will analyze and write up the
summer's work to present to the Academy in the fall. He hopes to continue next summer with
another study based on results from this year. It is important, he notes, to continue weekly
monitoring for several years to eliminate the effect of seasonal fluctuations.
Both Tweed and Hadorn feel this type of program is the very best way to involve students of
all ages in scientific inquiry and environmental responsibility. Students move from passive
learners in a classroom to active scientists in the field and lab. They ask questions, collect data,
and perform the routine of the field and lab worker. They do science.
21
-------
Wisconsin High School
Teachers and Students
Study a Watershed
and a Lake
(continued)
"Many of the experiences the students had this summer are not usually available until one
reaches upper-level undergrad or grad school." says Tweed, "That's a shame, because it is the
seventh, eighth, and ninth grade student who still cares, is still curious, and is ready to be
involved. These kids are the future of the country and the planet. This research may not be
earth-shattering in its scientific result, but it can change lives."
[For more information, contact: Paul Tweed, Augusta High School, Fit. 2, Box 65, Augusta, Wl 54722. For
information on the FIRST program, contact Gary Lake, Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters,
1922 University Ave., Madison, Wl 53705-4099. Phone: (608) 263-1692.]
TVA Produces Classroom Activities Guide
On Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention
The Environmental Education Section of the Tennessee Valley Authority has produced an
Environmental Resource Guide (ERG) on nonpoint source pollution prevention, a series of
classroom activities for grades 6-8. The guide was produced for the Air and Waste
Management Association (AWMA) Education Council.
The ERG, Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention, presents basic information on the relationships
between land use and water quality in a series of ten fact sheets and 15 activities. This guide
provides middle school science, math, social studies, and language arts teachers with a concise
introduction to nonpoint source pollution issues so they can present this basic information to
their students. The material is "teacher-friendly" and can easily be integrated into existing
curricula.
Additional ERGs are in the process of preparation for grades K-2, 3-5, and 9-12.
AWMA will distribute the guide and hold teacher-training workshops throughout the country.
The first such workshop was held in June in Kansas City. Twenty-four teachers participated.
Workshop evaluations indicated that all participants (except one who is currently not
teaching) said they would use the ERG in their classrooms.
Several federal agencies cooperated with TVA in the production of the guide, including
USDA-SCS; U.S. DOI, Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. EPA (OWOW, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division; and U.S. EPA, Region V, Wetlands and Watershed Section).
[For more information and to order the guide, contact: Beth O'Toole, Education Program Manager, Air and
Waste Management Association, PO Box 2861, Pittsburgh, PA 15230. Phone: (412) 232-3444. FAX: (412)
232-3450. Order: Environmental Resource Guide - Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention (code
ERG-ENS6). Cost: 1-14 copies, $30 each (AWMA members - $20); 15-49 copies, $15 each; 50 or more,
$12 each.]
NPS Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) Newฎ
Nonpoint Source Computer Bulletin Board System (NPS BBS). The NPS BBS,
through the user's personal computer, provides timely, relevant NPS information, a nationwide
forum for open discussion, arid the ability to exchange computer text and program files. Special
Interest Group Forums (mini-bulletin boards) are dedicated to specific topics and have all of the
features of the main BBS. The service is free except for any long distance phone charges incurred
by the user.
To access the NPS BBS, you will need a PC or terminal, telecommunications software (such as
Crosstalk or ProComm), a modem (1200 or 2400 baud), and a phone line.
The WPS BBS phone number is (301) 589-0205.
For a copy of the user's manual, complete THE COUPON on page 27 and mail or fax it in.
22
-------
News-Notes Searchable Index Now Easier to Use
Do you need to know the major NFS concerns in forestry? Funding for water resources
projects in Wisconsin? Maybe you remember a News-Notes article about South Carolina
sediment control but can't recall what issue it was in. Short of spending all day browsing
through News-Notes back issues, what can you do?
The NFS News-Notes database on the NFS BBS contains the articles from all the issues of
News-Notes in a searchable format. A recent upgrade has made the database much easier to
use. Users can now choose to view a list of keywords from inside the database rather than
having to get out of the database to check a bulletin containing the keyword list.
Users can also choose to read detailed instructions on how to conduct a search of all
News-Notes issues, or they can type "?" at any point to get help with specific types of searches.
To access the database, or Door, from the "Main Board Command?" prompt, type open. Then
choose the NFS News-Notes database from the list of Doors.
Capturing or Logging Your Search to Disk
Remember to turn on the capture or log function of your telecommunications software before
you start a search so that the record and results of your search will be written to disk. Refer to
the manual for your telecommunications software if you haven't done this before. If you use
CrossTalk, you must press ESC to get the Crosstalk command line, and then type ca. After you
have finished capturing your search, press ESC and type ca off. If you use ProComm, press
Alt-Fl, type a file name, and press enter. Be sure to press Alt-Fl again when you are done
logging.
You may search the databcise for article numbers or keywords, or you may search the title and
text of Nezos-Notes articles for any words you specify.
Searching for Article Numbers and Keywords
The Article Number field contains a code for each article. For example, if you are looking for
an article and you know only that it was in issue #2, a search for the text string "2-" would
locate all articles from that issue.
The Keywords field contains keyword and keyword phrases assigned to each article. Type L at
the News-Notes database menu to see a list of keywords from which to choose. Enter the entire
keyword or keyword phrase exactly as it appears on the keyword list or truncate the keyword
or keyword phrase with an "*". For example, searching for "Soil Conservation*" will find
articles keyworded for both "Soil Conservation" and "Soil Conservation Service."
Searching for Words in the Title, Text, or All Fields
A Title search locates article titles that contain a given word.
A Text search locates articles with a given word in the text of the article. An All Fields search
searches all fields, but serves primarily as way to do simultaneous searches of the Title and
Text fields.
Again, if you search for "pest*", records containing the words "pest," "pests," "pesticide," and
"pesticides" will be located.
Narrowing or Broadening Your Search
You can narrow the search by entering additional words on new lines. (This is known as the
logical AND operation.) You may enter as many single words as you wish for this type of
search. For example, if you enter "pesticide" on one line, and then enter "lawn" on the next
line, the database will locate only articles that have both the words "pesticide" and "lawn" in
them.
23
-------
In contrast, if you enter "pesticide,lawn" on one line, the database will locate all records that
have either the word "pesticide" or "lawn" in them (the logical OR operation). This broadens
your search. Separating words with a comma specifies that either word may occur in selected
records. You may include as many words separated by the comma as will fit on one line.
Displaying Search Results
The results of your search can be displayed in several different ways. Those who keep a
complete collection of News-Notes back issues may want to see only the article numbers and
titles of the selected articles. Others will want to view the entire text of the selected articles.
Either choice maybe read on-line or scrolled non-stop across the screen. If you are capturing to
disk, non-stop may be the most practical alternative, allowing you to read or print the article
later when you log off.
The News-Notes database can be a great time and effort saver. The searches are amazingly fast,
and the upgrade has made finding specific information easy.
Datebook
This DATEBOOK has been assembled with the cooperation of our readers and CTIC.
If there is a meeting or event that you would like placed in the DATEBOOK, contact the NFS
NEWS-NOTES editors. Due to an irregular printing schedule, notices should be in our hands at
least two months in advance to ensure timely publication. A more complete listing can be
found on the NFS BBS.
Meetings and
1992
August
25-27
31-9/2
31-9/3
September
8-9
9-10
13-17
13-17
13-17
14-16
__
Events
Fracture Trace and Lineament Analysis Short Course, Portland, ME. Contact: National
Groundwater Assoc., PO Box 182039, Dept. 017, Columbus, OH 43218-2039. (614) 761-1711.
Call Sheraton Tara Hotel (207) 775-6161 for room.
National Irrigation-Induced Erosion and Water Quality Conference, Boise, ID. Contact: William
Carmack, USDA-SCS, South Ag Building, 14th and Independence Ave.,SW, Washington, DC
20013. (202) 720-6037 or 720-0428.
Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century: Program Direction and Issue Decisions, Las Vegas,
NV. Contact: Michele Vuotto, Dynamac Corporation, 2275 Research Blvd., Suite 500, Rockville,
MD 20850-3268. Rooms at Riviera Hotel: (800) 634-3414.
Lake Champlain: It's Future Depends On Us, South Burlington, VT. Contact: Don Hipes, Rt. 2, Box
92, Jericho, VT 05465. (802) 244-4510. Cosponsored by the New Hampshire, Vermont and
Empire State (NY) Chapters'of the Soil and Water Conservation Society.
The District Role in Remedial Action Plans Workshop, Milwaukee, WL Contact: Bill Horvath,
NACD, 1052 Main, Stevens Point, WI54481-2895. (715) 341-1022. FAX: (715) 341-1023, Focuses
on Lake Michigan.
National RCWP Symposium: Ten Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution: The RCWP
Experience, Orlando, FL. Contact: Lisa Grayson, Terrene Institute, 1000 Connecticut Ave., NW,
Suite 802, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 833-3380. FAX: (202) 466-8554.
The Year 2000: Will We Be Ready Technically? Socially? Politically? 1992 Annual Meeting of the
American Fisheries Society, Rapid City, SD. Contact: Clifton Stone, AFS 92, PO Box 291,
Chamberlain, SD 57325-0291. (605) 734-6633. FAX: (605) 734-6691.
Fourth International Wetlands Conference, Columbus, OH. Contact: William Mitsch, School of
Natural Resources, OSU, 2021 Coffey Rd., Columbus, OH 53210. (614) 292-9774.
The District Role in Remedial Action Plans Workshop, Rochester, NY. Focuses on Lake Ontario. See
September 9-10 above for details.
-------
Datebook (Continued)
1992
September
20-24
21-25
27-30
October
1-2
6-8
14-15
14-16
16-22
27-29
30-31
November
2-7
Surface Water Quality and Ecology: 1992 Annual Water Environment Federation Conference, New
Orleans, LA. Contact: Maureen Novotne, WEF Technical Services, 601 Wythe St., Alexandria,
VA 22314-1994. (703) 684-2400.
Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds, Estes Park, CO. Contact: Neotropical Bird
Conference, Office of Conference Services, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
(303) 491-6222. FAX: (303) 491-0667. Registration: $75, $85 after 8/19. Rooms at YMCA (303)
586-3341. Hosted by "Partners in Flight." (See News-Notes issue #21, page 2 for EPA Office of
Water's involvement.)
2992 National Environmental Health Association Conference: Protecting Our Nation's Waters,
Norfolk, VA. Contact: NEHA, 720 S. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 970, Denver, CO 80222-9490. (303)
756-9090. FAX: (303) 691-9490. Topics: oil spill response, lessons from Kuwait and Valdez,
shellfish and seafood safety, constructed wetlands for sewage disposal. Call Marriott Hotel for
rooms: (804) 627-4200.
3rd Annual Utah Nonpoint Source Water Quality Conference, Ogden, UT. Contact: Jack Wilbur,
Utah Dept. of Agriculture, Environmental Quality Section, 350 N. Redwood Rd., Salt Lake
City, UT 84116. (801) 538-7098. Theme: Urban Runoff and Stormwater Management.
National Poultry Waste Management Symposium, Birmingham, AL. Contact: Richard Reynells,
NPL Poultry, USDA/ES, Room 3334, South Agriculture.Bldg., Washington, DC 20250-0900.
(202) 720-4087. FAX: (202) 720-4924. Sponsored by of USDA-Extension Service, land-grant
universities, and state and national poultry organizations.
7th Annual Groundwater Protection Seminar, Irving, TX. Contact: Brad L. Cross, Texas Water
Commission, PO Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711. (512) 371-6470. Seminar covers NFS
contamination of groundwater. Topics: delineation of wellhead protection areas, local
emergency spill response, comprehensive groundwater protection strategy.
Watershed Resources: Balancing Environmental, Social, Political, and Economic Factors in Large
Basins, Portland, OR. Contact: Conference Assistant, OSU College of Forestry, Peavy Hall 202,
Corvallis, OR 97331. (503) 737-2329. Explores how environmental and human factors interact
in watershed management challenges.
Interdisciplinary Approaches in Hydrology and Hydrogeology, Portland, OR. Contact: Helen Klose,
American Inst. of Hydrology, 3416 University Ave., SW, Minneapolis, MN 55414-3328. (612)
379-1030.
Ecosystem Restoration in the Great Lakes Basin, Green Bay, WI. Contact: JT&A, Inc., 1000
Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 802, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 833-3380. Register by 10/9.
Reserve poster presentation space by 9/14. Call Radisson Inn Hotel, (414) 494-7300, for room
by 9/28. Sponsored by the EPA Region V. Topics: restoration, mitigation, preservation,
protection of ecosystems.
Nonpoint Source Pollution: Causes, Consequences, and Cures, Fayetteville, AR. Cdntact: Martha L.
Noble, Nat'l Center for Agricultural Law, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701. (501)
575-7646. FAX: (501) 575-5830. Registration fee: $75 before 10/1; $100 after. Rooms at
Fayetteville Hilton: (501) 442-5555. Sponsored by National Center for Agricultural Law
Research and Information and AR Water Resources Research Center. Topics: agricultural,
urban and forestry NPS; federal and state laws; BMPs; watershed management; and voluntary
vs. mandatory controls.
12th Annual North American Lake Management Society International Symposium on Lake, Reservoir,
and Watershed Management, Cincinnati, OH. Contact: Bob Mason, Hamilton County Park
District, 10245 Winton Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45231. (513) 521-7275. FAX: (513) 521-2606. Topics:
zebra mussels, hydropower, wetlands, urban runoff, agricultural NPS, acid lakes, phosphorus
inactivation, computer modeling, citizen workshops. Sponsors: U.S. EPA Clean Lakes, TVA,
and OH Sea Grant.
25
-------
Datebook (Continued)
1992
November
4-6
18-20
19-21
December
14-15
Partnerships for Clean Water: Making Nonpoint Projects Work in the year of Clean Water, Angola,
IN. Contact: Randall Seelbrede, USDA SCS, 219 Paw Paw St., Paw Paw,, MI 49079. (616)
657-4220.
Integrated Watershed Management: Overcoming Obstacles, South Lake Tahoe, CA. Contact: Ken
Roby, USDA Forest Service, 410 Main St., PO Box 329, Greenville, CA 95947. (916) 284-7126.
Sponsored by Watershed Management Council.
1st New Mexico Riparian Conference: A Call to Action, Albuquerque, NM. Contact: Russ
LaFayette, New Mexico Riparian Council, PO Box 22538, Coranado Station, NM 87502.
Sponsored by Soil and Water Conservation Society (NM chapter) and NM Riparian Council.
Will clarify issues and options for riparian conservation in Southwest.
6th National Drainage Symposium, Nashville, TN. Contact: ASAE, 2950 Niles Rd, St Joseph, MI
49085-9659.
1993
January
10-13
19-20
The Development of Soil and Groundioater Cleanup Standards for Contaminated Sites, Washington,
DC. Contact: Dr. Eileen O'Neill, Water Environment Federation, 601 Wythe St., Alexandria, VA
22314-1992. (703) 684-2400. FAX: (703) 684-2492.
Stormwater Management and Combined Sewer Overflow Technology Transfer Seminar, Contact: Ms.
B. Pasian, Conference Secretary, Wastewater Technology Center, PO Box 5068, Burlington,
Ontario L7R 4L7. (416) 336-4588. FAX: (416) 336-4765.
Calls For Papers DEADLINES
1992
September
October
1 Gulf of Mexico Symposium, December 10-12,1992, Tarpon Springs, FL. CALL FOR POSTERS.
Abstracts due by 9/1. Contact: Frederick Kopfler (601) 688-3726.
30 Riparian Ecosystems in the Humid U.S.: Functions, Values and Management, March 15-18,1993,
Atlanta, GA. CALL FOR ABSTRACTS. Contact: John Greis, EPA Region IV, (404) 347-2126.
Topics: water quality/quantity, wildlife, fisheries, recreation, aesthetics, and landowner
economics.
31 Managing Riparian Areas: Common Threads and Shared Benefits, February 4-6,1993, Albuquerque,
NM. CALL FOR POSTERS. Contact: Water Resources Center, University of Arizona, 350 N.
Campbell Ave., Tucson, AZ 85721. (602) 792-9591. Submit poster abstracts by October 31,1992.
1993
January
1
Prairie Ecosystems: Wetland Ecology, Management, and Restoration, August 9-13,1993, Jamestown,
ND. CALL FOR PAPERS. Contact: Dr. Ned Euliss, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern
Prairie Res. Center, RR1, Box 96C, Jamestown, ND 58401. Topics: Past, Present, and Future of
Wetlands; Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Wetlands; Wetland Policies, Programs, and
Politics; Biological Characteristics of Wetlands; Perspectives on Wetlands; Positive and
Negative Aspects of Management. Also: Created and Restored Wetlands: Functions, Values,
and Technologies; Wetlands in the Landscape; and Innovative Strategies for Wetland
Conservation. Paper titles due by 1/1/93; abstracts by 5/1/93.
ZB
-------
The Coupon
r
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon
(Clip or Photocopy and Mail or FAX this coupon to us)
#23
Our Mailing Address: UPS News-Notes (WH-553), Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
U.S. EPA, 401M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
Our Fax Number: NPS News-Notes (202)260-1517
Use this Coupon to:
(check one or more) Q Share your Clean Water Experiences, OR
Q Ask for Information, OR
Q Make a Suggestion
Write your story, ask your question, or make your suggestions here:
Attach additional pages if necessary.
Q Please send me a copy of "Agents for Change," the OECD Workshop Report on
Sustainable Agriculture.
Q / want the NFS/BBS Users' Manual. Please send me a copy.
Q Please add my name to the mailing list to receive News-Notes.
Your Name:
Organization:
Address:
City/State:
Phone:
Zip:
Fax:
l_
27
-------
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES is an occasional bulletin dealing with the condition of the environment and the control of;
nonpoint sources of water pollution. 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 actjv-
ily, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters and groundwater. NFS pollution is normally associated with
agricultural, silvicultural, mining, and urban runoff. Hydrologic modification is a form of NFS pollution that often adversely affects the
biological integrity of surface waters.
WPS NEWS-NOTES is published under the authority of section 319(1) of the Clean Water Act by the Nonpoint Source Informa-
tion Exchange (WH-553). Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, arid Watersheds, Office of
Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M St., SW, Washington DC 20460. FAX # (FTS/202) 260-1517. Hal Wise, Editor;
Elaine Bloom (contractor), Associate Editor; Susan V. Alexander and Anne Weinberg, Contributing Editors. Corresponding Editors:
Margherita Pryor, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division. OWOW; and John Reeder, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
Unless otherwise attributed, all material in this bulletin has been prepared by the editors. For inquiries on editorial matters, call
(FTS/202) 260-3665 or FAX (FTS/202) 260-1517. For additions or changes to the mailing list, please use the COUPON on page 27
and mail or FAX it in. We are not equipped to accept mailing list additions or changes over the phone. |
Moving?
Send present mailing label
and new address including
zip coda to:
NPS NEWS-NOTES (WH-553)
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
First Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
* 1 9 92*
THE YEAR OF
GLEAN WTER
Printed on recycled paper
------- |