December 2000
f63
Nonpoint Source
News-Notes
The Condition of the Water-Related Environment
The Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
The Ecological Management & Restoration of Watersheds
Special Focus:
Onsite Wastewater Treatment
News-Notes
Goes Electronic!
We are switching to electronic
distribution of News-Notesl Join the
new News-Notes listserver to receive
electronic notices when new issues
are released. If you would still like to
receive a printed copy, you must send^
us your name and address.
Read more about the
switch on page 2.
EPA's new Guidelines for Management of Onsite/Decentralized
Wastewater Systems Affect You?
If you live in a community with water pollution problems from failing septic systems, EPA's new
onsite/decentralized wastewater system guidelines could help you. EPA has developed draft
Guidelines for Management of Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems to assist communities in
managing wastewater from onsite systems. The guidelines can be used as a reference by
communities interested in improving their onsite wastewater management programs to increase
public health and environmental protection. They were structured to allow communities to pick
and choose or entirely adopt sets of management criteria that will provide the necessary level of
protection while balancing cost and other institutional factors.
A Growing Problem
When properly managed, onsite/decentralized wastewater systems (commonly referred to as septic
systems, private sewage systems, or individual sewage systems) can be the most practical and least
expensive way to treat and dispose of household wastewater in suburban and rural areas. On the
other hand, it is difficult to measure the specific relationship between onsite systems and the
quality of our water resources; studies show that when these systems operate improperly they can
contribute significantly to water quality degradation.
States report failing septic systems as the third most common source of ground water contamination.
EPA estimates that approximately 168,000 viral and 34,000 bacterial illnesses each year result from
drinking water systems that rely on ground water as their source. Malfunctioning septic systems are
The CWAP logo denotes
articles related to action
items called for in the
President's Clean Water
Action Plan. See
News-Notes #51 and
#52 for more information
on the plan.
Inside this Issue
Special Focus: Onsite Wastewater Treatment
Will EPA's new Guidelines for Management of Onsite/Decentralized
Wastewater Systems Affect You? 1
Onsite Wastewater Innovations from State and Local Governments .... 5
Busted! Leaky Septic Tanks Caught Redhanded! 8
Washington Scientists Explain How to Track Down Bacteria 10
Optical Brighteners to Shed Light on Sewer and Septic Tank Leaks ... 11
Protecting Ground Water on the Garden Peninsula 13
Septic Systems for Dogs? 14
New York Onsite Wastewater Treatment Training Network
Underway! 15
Notes on the National Scene
New Nonpoint Source Management Partnership Kicked Off 16
Exploring the Realm of Enforceable Nonpoint Source Controls 17
News from the States, Tribes, and Localities
Northeast Heronry Suffers the Effects of Development 19
TheBosque Watershed Doesn't Waste Manure 21
Notes on Watershed Management
Ski Resorts Pledge to Protect the Environment. .
Golf Courses are Getting Greener
Notes on Education
Trivia Campaign Reaches Average Citizen
Students Learn from Wastewater
Educational Resources Column
Reviews and Announcements
Comments Period Open on National Agricultural Management
Measures Guidance
Call for Papers: National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop
Web Sites Worth A Bookmark
Watch Over Washington
BMP Manual from the City of Knoxville, Tennessee
Local Government Environmental Network
23
25
25
26
28
29
29
29
29
30
DATEBOOK
THE COUPON
30
31
All issues of News-Notes are accessible on EPA's website: www.epa.gov/OWOW/info/NewsNotes/index.html.
-------
News-Notes is Going Electronic — Well, Almost!
After 10 years of printing 14,000 copies per issue, News-Notes is finally entering the digital
age! To better serve News-Notes subscribers and to save on printing costs, the producers of
News-Notes are switching to electronic distribution of the newsletter.
Future issues of News-Notes will be available on EPA's web site at
www.epagov/owow/info/ NewsNotes in both pdf and html formats (they are currently
available in only html format). An added feature will be the ability to search through back
issues using an online searchable database. Users will also be able to search by keyword, date
and issue, or by typing in their own search criteria
We have set up a News-Notes listserver that will be used to announce the posting of each new
issue on the web. It will also provide atable of contents of what articles are available as well
as a short description of each article. To sign up for this listserver, please send an e-mail
directly to:
• Listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epagov
• /« the body of the message type: subscribe News-Notes firstname lastname
• Leave the subject line blank
Once subscribed, you will receive a welcome message explaining how the listserver works.
Unlike the widely popular NPSINFO listserver, subscribers will not be able to post messages
to the News-Notes listserver. It will only be used to distribute information pertaining to
News-Notes.
Still Need a Printed Copy?
For those of you who are unable to obtain News-Notes electronically and wish to continue
receiving printed copies in the mail, we will continue to print a limited number of copies.
However, to receive a hard copy, you must complete and return the form below, as we will
need to develop a new subscriber database.
Yes! I would like to continue receiving printed copies of News-Notes by mail.
Your Name: Date:
Organization:
Address:
City/State: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
E-mail: Web site:
Mail, fax, or e-mail your address to:
NFS News-Notes
c/o Terrene Institute
4 Herbert Street
Alexandria, VA22305
fax: (703) 548-6299
e-mail: terrinst@aol.com
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Will EPA's new
Guidelines for
Management of
Onsite/Decentralized
Wastewater Systems
Affect You?
(continued)
identified as one potential source of this contamination. In its
1999 National Health Protection Survey of Beaches, EPA
reported that septic systems were a significant pollution source
for more than one-third of the water-quality impaired miles of
shoreline. The discharge of partially treated sewage from
malfunctioning septic systems was identified as a principal or
contributing factor in 32 percent of all harvest-limited shellfish
growing areas. Onsite wastewater systems have also added to the
overabundance of nutrients in ponds, lakes, and coastal
estuaries. As a result, algal blooms and other signs of
eutrophication have occurred.
Did you know .. .
Approximately 25 percent of
the estimated 100 million
homes occupied in the United
States are served by onsite
wastewater systems.
Approximately 40 percent of
new homes are served by
onsite wastewater systems.
More than half of all onsite
systems are more than 30
years old and a significant
number are experiencing
problems.
Septic tank systems constitute
the third most commonly
reported source of ground
water contamination.
In 1997, EPA's Response to Congress on the Use of Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Systems recognized the lack of manage-
ment as a major barrier to implementing decentralized systems
and concluded that "adequately managed decentralized
wastewater systems are a cost-effective and long-term option
for meeting public health and water quality goals, particularly
in less densely populated areas." In 1998, EPA was directed in
the Clean Water Action Plan to promote adoption and management of appropriate
onsite/decentralized systems and specifically, to produce a set of voluntary national management
standards. These guidelines are a result of that process.
Management Guidelines
The management guidelines present five levels of management in a progressive series of model
programs, beginning with basic information collection and awareness of maintenance needed, and
moving up to the highest level of management, in which onsite systems are owned and managed by
a utility. Each model program profiled in the guidelines shares the common goal of protecting
human health and the environment. In general, there is a direct relationship between the need to
protect a sensitive resource and the level of onsite/decentralized technology required. As more
complex technologies are needed, the level of management should increase. The guidelines have
been written to track these concepts starting with Model 1 (low potential impacts, simple
technologies, and little oversight) and ending with Model 5 (high environmental risk, complex
technologies, and a high level of managerial oversight). Each model program includes a set of
management objectives and associated program elements and activities targeted at the satisfactory
achievement of the management objectives. Program elements include planning, siting, design,
construction, operation and maintenance, residuals management, certification and licensing,
education and training, inspections, monitoring, record keeping, and corrective action.
The model programs are a benchmark for a state, tribal, or local unit of government to:
• identify its management objective;
• evaluate whether its current program is adequate; and
• determine both an appropriate management program, and/or the necessary program
enhancements to achieve its management objectives and public health and environmental
goals.
Model Program 1 — System Inventory and Awareness of Maintenance Needs:
EPA recommends this as a minimum level of management. Model Program 1 applies where
conventional onsite systems, owned and operated by individual homeowners, are sited in areas of
low environmental sensitivity, i. e., no site or soil restrictions such as a high groundwater table a
drinking water wells in close proximity. Model Program 1 is intended to raise the local regulatory
agency's awareness of the location of systems, raise homeowners' awareness of basic system needs,
and ensure homeowner compliance with basic maintenance requirements. This program also serves
as a starting point for communities to have basic data to determine if higher management levels are
necessary.
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Will EPA's new
Guidelines for
Management of
Onsite/Decentralized
Wastewater Systems
Affect You?
(continued)
Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater
Resources on the Web
Model Program 2 — Management Through Maintenance Contracts: EPA recommends
this program -where sites with limiting conditions, such as small lot sizes, or restrictive soil
conditions (i.e., slowly permeable soils, shallow soils with limited treatment capacity or high
ground water table) are encountered in a small portion of a community. These limiting conditions
require improved effluent dispersal to the soil or additional treatment units such as media filters a
aerobic treatment units, and are typically operated through contract with equipment vendors.
Model Program 2, therefore, sets higher expectations than Model Program f for a regulatory
program and for educating homeowners.
Model Program 3 — Management Through Operating Permits: This program is
recommended in situations where the receiving environment indicates a need for advanced levels of
treatment, such as an unconfined aquifer used as a drinking water supply or a fish spawning area
Model Program 3, consistent with the increasing risk, recommends setting measurable performance
standards and ensuring compliance by issuing renewable operating permits that indicate specific
performance criteria to be achieved. The regulatory agency monitors these systems for compliance
with the performance criteria
Model Program 4 — Utility Operation and Maintenance: This program is appropriately
applied where engineered designs, such as aerobic treatment units, are required to overcome site,
soil, or environmental conditions that are not conducive to conventional or alternative onsite
technology. Frequent monitoring and maintenance are needed in these situations. Model Program
4 recommends that a public/private utility be responsible for operation and maintenance to ensure
maintenance needs are met.
Model Program 5 — Utility Ownership and Management: Model Program 5 represents
the management needs of a more complex program where a very high level of control is required
due to public health or environmental concerns. It includes the public/private utility as the
designated management entity that both owns and operates the onsite systems in a manner
analogous to a publicly owned wastewater utility. This program is similar to the utility concept in
Model Program 4. Under this level of management the utility maintains total control of all aspects
of management, not just operation and maintenance.
Although adopting the guidelines is completely voluntary, EPA recommends the highest levels of
management be implemented in cases where there is high risk of environmental degradation or a
threat to public health, particularly where onsite systems are identified as a significant source of
water quality impairment. However, EPA does recognizes that states, tribes, and local governments
need a flexible framework and guidance to best tailor their programs to the specific needs of the
community and to the institutional capacity of the regulatory authority. These guidelines are not
intended to supersede existing federal, state, tribal, and local laws and
regulations, but to complement them.
The Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment
www.dal.ca/~cwrs/cdwt
EPA's Office of Wastewater Management
www.epa.gov/owm
National Environmental Health Association
www.neha.org
National Onsite Demonstration Program
(a part of Small Flows Clearinghouse)
www.estd.wvu.edu/nsfc/NSFC_NODP.html
National Onsite Wastewater Recycling
Association, Inc.
www.nowra.org
National Small Flows Clearinghouse
www.estd.wvu.edu/nsfc/n sfc_homepage.html
National Sanitation Foundation
www.nsf.org
Spreading the Word
EPA has collected input from various sources, including federal, state
and local regulators, environmentalists, engineers, trade associations,
and service providers and will continue to actively seek further input on
how to ensure the guidelines are useful.
A Notice of Availability of the draft guidelines was published in the
Federal Register on October 6, 2000. Interested parties are encouraged
to submit comments using the following web site:
www.epagov/owm/smallc/guidelines.htm. Comments can also be
submitted by e-mail to decentralized@3pagov, by mail to Joyce Hudson
at the address below, or faxed to (202) 260-0 f f 6. The deadline for
submitting comments is January f 9, 200 f.
[For more information, contact USEPA's Joyce Hudson at (202) 564-0657,
e-mail: hudson.joyce@epa.gov or Steve Hogye at (202) 564-0631, e-mail:
hogye.stephen@epa.gov, both located at the USEPA Office of Wastewater
Management, Ariel Rios Building (4204), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20460.]
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Onsite Wastewater Innovations from State and Local Governments
Onsite wastewater treatment systems collect, treat, and release more than 4 billion gallons of treated
effluent per day from an estimated 26 million homes, businesses, and recreational facilities
nationwide. These systems include treatment units for both individual residences and small clusters
of buildings connected to a common treatment system. Recognition of onsite system impacts on
ground water and surface water quality (e.g., nitrate and bacteria contamination of wells, nutrient
inputs to lakes and coastal waters) have increased interest in optimizing their performance.
Public health and environmental protection officials now acknowledge that onsite systems are not
just temporary installations that will be replaced eventually by centralized sewage treatment servi ce,
but permanent approaches to treating wastewater for release and reuse in the environment. Onsite
systems are recognized as viable, low-cost, long-term approaches to wastewater treatment if they ar e
planned, designed, installed, operated, and maintained properly. To be effective, onsite system
management programs should ensure that these systems provide treatment that is comparable to
centralized wastewater treatment plants.
Building A Management Framework for the New Millennium
Management or oversight of onsite wastewater treatment systems in the past most often meant
developing minimum site criteria (i.e., soil type and depth, setback distances, slopes), prescribing
particular system types, and overseeing installation. Operation and maintenance was often left up
to untrained and often uninformed homeowners, which produced mixed results and many
documented instances of system failures.
During the 1980s, however, state and local government representatives began partnering with
federal agency staff, design engineers, academicians, and other industry professionals to improve
onsite/decentralized system management. The result has been a rapid increase in wastewater
treatment research, new system technologies, and management program approaches. The following
case studies, featured in publications by the Small Flows Clearinghouse, the State of Pennsylvania,
the State of Massachusetts, and others, illustrate a few of the innovations helping to drive national
interest in better management programs for onsite treatment systems.
Model Framework for Onsite
Wastewater Management
•/ Performance requirements that protect
human health and the environment.
•/ System management to maintain
performance within the established
performance requirements.
^Compliance monitoring and enforcement to
ensure system performance is achieved
and maintained.
•^Technical guidelines for site evaluation,
design, construction, and operation and
acceptable prescriptive designs for
specific site conditions and use.
•/ Education/training for all practitioners,
planners, and owners.
•/Certification/licensing for all practitioners to
maintain standards of competence and
conduct.
•/ Program reviews to identify knowledge
gaps, implementation shortcomings, and
necessary corrective actions.
Source: National Onsite Wastewater Recycling
Association, 1999.
The District Model
Sanitation District Management of Onsite Systems in New
Mexico. Onsite systems in Pefia Blanca, New Mexico, are managed by
the Pefia Blanca Water and Sanitation District, which is organized under
state statutes requiring a petition signed by 25 percent of the registered
voters and a public referendum prior to district formation. Once formed,
water and sanitation districts in New Mexico are considered subdivisions
of the state and have the power to levy and collect ad valorem taxes
(imposed at a rate percent value) and the right to issue general obligation
and revenue bonds.
Residents and public agency officials in Pefia Blanca sought to improve the
management of systems in the community after a 1985 study found that 86
percent of existing systems required upgrades, repair, or replacement. The
water and sanitation district was designated as the lead agency for managing
onsite wastewater treatment systems because it already provided domestic
water service to the community and had an established administrative
structure. The sanitation district relies on the New Mexico Environment
Department to issue permits and monitor installation, while the district
provides biannual pumping services through an outside contractor for a
monthly fee of $10.64 for a 1,000-gallon tank. The program has been in
operation since 1991 and serves nearly 200 homes and businesses. Sampling
of private wells in the area in 1999 found nitrate nitrogen levels below
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
On site Waste water
Innovations from
State and Local
Governments
(continued)
1 mg/L. Septage pooling on ground surfaces, a problem identified in the 1985 study, has been
eliminated. For more information, seewww.estd.wvu.edu/nodp4/products.htm.
Financing Onsite/Decentra/ized Management Programs
PENNVEST: Financing Onsite Wastewater Systems in the Keystone State. The
Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) provides low-cost financing for
existing systems on individual lots or within entire communities. Teaming with the Pennsylvania
Housing Finance Agency and the state Department of Environmental Protection, PENNVEST
created a low-interest onsite system loan program for low to moderate income homeowners. The
$65 application fee is refundable if the project is approved. The program can save system owners
$3,000 to $6,000 in interest payments on a 15-year loan of $10,000. As of 1999, PENNVEST has
approved 230 loans totaling $1.8 million (an average loan of $7,800). Funds for the program come
from state revenue bonds, special statewide referenda, the state general fund, and the State
Revolving Fund. For more information, see www.pennvest.state.paus.
Monitoring and Assessment
Characterizing Nitrogen Contributions from Onsite Systems in California. The San
Lorenzo River Basin in California is served primarily by onsite wastewater treatment systems. Since
1985, the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Service has been working with local
stakeholders to develop a program for inspecting all onsite systems, assessing pollutant loads from
those systems, and correcting identified problems. Studies conducted through this initiative
included calculations of nutrient inputs to the river from onsite systems. According to the analyses
performed by the county and its contractors, 55 to 60 percent of the nitrate load in the San
Lorenzo River during the summer months came from onsite system effluent. Assumptions
incorporated into the calculations included an average septic tank effluent total nitrogen
concentration of 50 mg/L, per capita wastewater generation of 70 gallons per day, and an average
house occupancy of 2.8 persons. Nitrogen removal was estimated at 15 percent for wastewater
infiltration fields in sandy soils, and 25 percent in other soils.
Using CIS Tools to Characterize Septic System Water Quality Threats in Colorado.
Summit County, Colorado, developed a geographic information system (GIS) to identify potential
impacts that septic system-generated nitrates might have on water quality in the upper Blue River
watershed. The GIS was developed in response to concerns that increasing residential development
in the basin might increase nutrient loadings into the Dillon Reservoir. Database components
entered into the GIS included geologic maps, soil survey maps, topographic features, land parcel
maps, domestic well sampling data, onsite system permitting data, well logs, and assessors' data
The database can be updated with new water quality data, system maintenance records, property
records, and onsite system construction permit and repair information. The database is linked to a
spreadsheet-based ground water vulnerability rating system. The approach is being used to identify
areas that may have excessive contamination by nitrate-nitrogen loading from onsite systems. The
assessments will support onsite system placement and removal decisions and help prioritize water
quality improvement projects.
Performance Standards
Onsite System Operating Permits: St. Louis County, Minnesota. St. Louis County,
Minnesota, extends from the southwestern tip of Lake Superior north to the Canadian border. The
physical characteristics of the region are poorly suited for application of traditional onsite treatment
systems. To allow the use of onsite treatment, the county has adopted performance requirements that
may be followed in lieu of the prescriptive requirements where less than three feet of unsaturated,
permeable soils are present. The system should not discharge nitrate in concentrations exceeding 10
mg/L and fecal coliforms must be removed if the underlying ground water is to be used as drinking
water without disinfection. In such cases the county requires that the owner continuously demon-
strate and certify that the system is meeting performance requirements. This is achieved through the
issuance of renewable operating permits for higher-performance alternative treatment systems.
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Onsite Wastewater Training Centers Help Citizens and
Professionals Maintain Septic Systems
Maintenance is the key to preventing septic systems from
leaking. Onsite wastewater training centers in 20 states
throughout the country are ensuring that installers,
regulators, homeowners, and others responsible for
maintaining these systems have the right keys. Each training
center's funding sources vary and may include federal, state,
educational institution, industry (septic installers and
pumpers), and fees generated by the center. Each center is
unique and displays onsite wastewater treatment
technologies that are typical of their region. Most centers
STATE
Alabama
Arizona
Arizona
Delaware
California
Colorado
Florida
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New York
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
CENTER
AL Onsite Training Center
provide aboveground displays of typical and alternative
onsite technologies (using water rather than wastewater to
demonstrate). It takes the mystery out of wastewater
treatment and allows students to see how the systems
function and what is needed to keep them running properly.
The training centers also provide valuable onsite system
curricula and can provide training to prepare for licensing
and certification and continuing education for states or
counties that require licenses for onsite professionals. The
centers are located in the following states:
Northern AZ University Onsite Wastewater
Demonstration Facility
Onsite Wastewater Association of AZ
Environmental Training Center at Del Tech
CA Wastewater Training & Research Center
CO School of Mines/CO Environmental Health Assn.
FL Onsite Wastewater Training Center
KY Onsite Training Center
MA DEP Training Center
Ml Onsite Wastewater Training and Education Center
Univ. of MN, Extension Service
MO Small Wastewater Flows Education and
Research Center
NY Onsite Wastewater Treatment Training Network
Guilford County Onsite Wastewater Training Center
National Land-Based Technology and Watershed
Protection Training Center
SE Regional Onsite Wastewater Training
Facility
Tidewater Onsite Wastewater Research and Edu Center
OR Onsite Wastewater Training Center
Univ. of Rl Onsite Wastewater Training Center
TN Onsite Training Center (in progress)
International Wastewater Treatment Training Center
South TX International Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Training Center
TX Onsite Wastewater Treatment Training Center
UT Onsite Wastewater Treatment Training Center
Northern New England Wastewater Training Center
Northwest Onsite Wastewater Training Center
WV Onsite Wastewater Training Center
Univ. of Wl Small Scale Waste Management Project
CONTACT
Allen Tartt, 205-652-3803
Paul Trotta, 520-523-4330
Colin Bishop, 520-226-0607
Jerry Williams, 302-855-5900
Tibor Banathy, 530-898-6027
Rober Siegrist, 303-273-3490
Kevin Sherman, 850-402-9230
Mike Davis, 502-839-5082
John Higgins, 508-756-7281
Ted Loudon, 517-353-3741
Dave Gustafson, 612-625-6711
Dennis Sievers, 573-882-7855
Kathy White, 315-684-6670
Larry Smith, 336-373-4773
Brenda Morris, 336-375-5876
Mike Hoover, 919-515-7305
Joni Tanner, 919-513-1678
David Lindbo, 252-793-4428, x166
David Lindbo, 252-793-4428, x166
Joel Smith, 541-440-4683
George Loomis, 401-874-4558
James McClain, 615-226-9601
Raymond Bader, 915-859-7725
John Drawe, 956-968-5585
Bruce Lesikar, 979-845-7453
Judy Sims, 435-797-3159
Dick Perez, 802-234-9279
Dave Lenning, 360-455-8880
MikeAiton, 304-293-4191, x5510
E. Jerry Tyler, 608-262-0853
For more information about onsite wastewater training centers, contacts, activities, and other
training resources, please visit these web sites: National Environmental Training Center for Small
Communities (www.estd.wvu.edu/netc/netcsc_homepage.html); Consortium of Institutes for
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (www.dal.ca/~cwrs/cdwt).
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Onsite Wastewater The operating permit is based on evaluation of system performance rather than design. The permit
Innovations from is issued for a limited term, typically five years. Renewal requires that the owner document that t he
State and Local permit requirements have been met. The permit program is self-supporting through permit fees.
Governments
(continued) Massachusetts Requirements for Nitrogen-sensitive Areas. Nitrogen-sensitive areas are
defined in Massachusetts rules as occurring within certain wellhead protection areas, watersheds, or
recharge areas for public water supplies; nitrogen-sensitive embayments; and other areas designated
as nitrogen-sensitive based on evaluations of the receiving waters. Newly constructed onsite systems
in these areas must limit design flow to a maximum of 440 gallons per day of aggregated flow per
acre. Exceptions are permitted for treatment systems with enhanced nitrogen removal capability,
where the maximum design flow can be increased. The design flow restrictions do not apply to
systems that produce an effluent with no more than 10 mg/L of nitrate.
Inspection and Maintenance
Massachusetts'Inspection Program. In 1996, Massachusetts mandated inspections of onsite
systems to identify and address problems posed by failing systems. The intent of the program is to
ensure the proper operation and maintenance of all systems. Inspections are required at time of
property transfer, system expansion, and a change in use of the building that might alter the waste
stream. Systems with design flows equal to or greater than 10,000 gallons per day require annual
inspections. Inspections are to be performed only by persons approved by the state. The inspection
criteria include detailed descriptions of the site, system components, and inspection findings for
the soil infiltration field, septic tank, and other treatment units, if any. The owner must make the
appropriate upgrades to the system within two years of discovery. The owner's failure to have the
system inspected as required or to make the necessary repairs constitutes a violation of the code.
Busted! Leaky Septic Tanks Caught Redhanded!
One evening while watching the popular television series Cops, John Church, an environmental
health specialist with the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH), devised a revolutionary new way
to spot failing septic tanks. Watching police officers use an infrared heat detection system to track
criminals on the run at night, Church thought there must be a way to transfer this technology to
water quality protection. He began working on apian to use infrared equipment to identify leaking
septic tanks contributing to high bacterial concentrations in Lake Conway, located 30 miles north
of Little Rock.
Lake Conway, built and owned by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, is located in a
rapidly growing rural residential area Wetlands around the lake provide habitat for ducks, geese,
and other migratory birds, including the bald eagle. The lake is popular for its game fish, includi ng
bass, crappie, brim, and catfish. However, recent concerns about sewage in the lake have put a
damper on recreationists' enthusiasm. There have been several fish kills on the lake attributed to
low dissolved oxygen levels. At least one fish kill has been blamed on a malfunction at a large sewer
plant that discharges into a tributary of the lake.
In 1998, the Lake Conway Conservation Committee (LCCC), a local watershed association,
compared water samples flowing into the lake with those discharged from the lake. Results
indicated that the concentration of E. coll bacteria, which can cause rashes and stomach aches, was
15 times higher in water flowing out of the lake than that coming into the lake. Additional testing
carried out by the ADH revealed 30 malfunctioning septic systems within 300 feet of the lake. But
the septic systems continue to be installed-Church said he has seen around 600 septic system
permits approved annually in recent years.
Although the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission owns a 20-foot buffer zone around the lake,
there are no restrictions, covenants, or building codes associated with lakeside property. Most of the
residences within 300 feet of the lake were built before septic permits were required by the state.
Today, however, developers continue to install septic systems, even though the soil is often unsuit able.
Most of the soils around Lake Conway, especially those with shallow depths to a seasonal water tabl e
of bedrock, present limitations for designing septic systems. Sometimes these limitations can be
overcome by using alternate designs, however; according to the ADH, many sites are not suitable for
8 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Busted! Leaky
Septic Tanks Caught
Redhanded!
(continued)
Infrared Technology in
Michigan
Church isn't the only one who uses
infrared. Scientists at the Macomb
County Health Department in Michigan
have been using infrared technology
to spot septic leaks for several years.
Infrared experts collect thermal and
reflective infrared data to help pinpoint
pollution sources in Lake St, Glair.
Thermal data show areas of the lake
that are a little warmer-such as would
be expected from an area receiving
wastewater from a leaking tank or an
illicit sewer discharge. Reflective data
are used to pinpoint areas with
unusually green vegetation-an
indication of standing wastewater.
Lingering problems with Lake St. Clair
beach closures because of high E. coll
counts have led Macomb County and
St. Clair County to form a joint task
force charged with investigating ways
to prevent water pollution.
[For more information contact the
Macomb County Health Department,
Environmental Health Services Division
at (810) 469-5236. ]
any kind of onsite subsurface sewage disposal system. The LCCC and the ADH knew they needed to
address the problem, but were unsure how to proceed—that is, until Church starting watching Cops.
Targeting the Leaky Systems
Knowing that sewage effluent is, on average, 20 degrees warmer than the ambient ground
temperature and thus exhibits a different thermal signature than a nearby water body, Church
devised a plan to use an Arkansas State Police helicopter equipped with a Forward Looking Infrared
(FLIR) imaging system, as well as video equipment and a global positioning system (GPS) to
locate, map, and videotape sites of malfunctioning septic tanks in the Lake Conway watershed.
Infrared mapping can distinguish heat differences as small as one-tenth of a degree.
The Arkansas State Police agreed to donate the use of their helicopter if Church would foot the bil 1
for the fuel, which came to only about $130. In November, when the ambient ground temperature
was cold enough to allow the warm septic effluent to show up well on the FLIR system, Church
began his flights. When he got a hit with the infrared unit, he videotaped it and then recorded the
GPS location to note on a map later.
Based on his infrared searches and ADH data, Church estimates indicated that "more than 1,000
improperly installed or seasonally failing septic systems influence the lake." Between 2,500 and
3,500 residents live within 300 feet of the lake. ADH estimates that 5 percent of these residents or
about 225, may have failing systems. This finding is especially disturbing since 1,600 to 2,100 of
residences in this area are served by private wells for drinking water, which could also be affected by
the malfunctioning septic systems.
Next Steps
To address the problem, the LCCC and the ADH considered both centralized and decentralized
wastewater treatment options for the community. For a rural area, using one centralized wastewater
treatment system would be more expensive, with 70 to 90 percent of the cost coming from the
construction of the system. The decentralized solution uses cluster systems connecting several
homes to a small onsite community treatment system. After a preliminary feasibility study earlier
this year, the LCCC decided that a series of seven decentralized systems was the best
solution for the region. At a cost of $9.2 million, the decentralized systems offer
siting flexibility while allowing for a centralized management network. The LCCC
also conducted alow-to-moderate income study to determine if at least 51 percent
of the estimated 1,600 residents around the lake fall below certain income levels.
The positive results of the income survey, coupled with majority failure rate for
existing septic systems, will virtually guarantee funding from a variety of sources for
the new project. Each of the qualified residents could connect to the new systems for
approximately $20 to $30 in monthly sewer bills.
The new systems will serve more than 1,500 homes in several areas around the
6,700-acre lake. Fifty-three percent of the cost will come directly from grant money.
In the meantime, the Faulkner County Public Facilities Board, which was created
under a county ordinance in 1990, has filed a draft with the legal division of the
ADEQ to place a moratorium on the installation of new septic systems within a half
mile of the lake's shoreline.
Each of the new cluster systems will send wastewater flows by gravity from a septic
tank to a recirculation tank, which is equipped with a pump, a timing mechanism,
and float valves. The wastewater is pumped to a recirculating sand filter either in
timed doses or when the wastewater reaches a certain level in the tank. After being
treated in the sand filter, the wastewater collects in underdrains and a portion of it is
directed back to the recirculation tank, where it mixes with the septic tank effluent
and is recirculated to the sand filter. The remaining sand filter effluent goes directly
to further treatment or disposal.
The LCCC and the ADH chose sand filters because they are one of the best options
for additional onsite treatment where septic tank/soil absorption systems have failed
or are restricted because of high ground water, shallow bedrock, poor soils, or other
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Busted! Leaky site conditions. They also can be a good choice in areas where centralized treatment is unavailable
Septic Tanks Caught or too expensive. Their performance is relatively consistent and they have low operation and
Redhanded! maintenance requirements.
(continued)
Not only did the infrared scanning identify which septic tanks were malfunctioning, it also saved
the ADH money. Sending agents on foot to do the same investigative study would have cost
thousands more. ADH hopes to secure additional grants for further study.
[For more information, contact John Church, P.O. Box 1726, Conway, AR 72033. Phone: (501) 450-4941;
fax: (501)450-4941.]
Washington Scientists Explain How to Track Down Bacteria
Combating bacterial contamination is often an intimidating task, especially when the source is
ambiguous. Scientists at the State of Washington Department of Ecology have developed anew
tool to help make it a little easier. After a comprehensive literature review, the Department
published Fecal Contamination Source Identification Methods in Surface Water.
"We work with local groups a lot with their monitoring efforts — many of them asked about ways
to differentiate between sources of bacteria," explains Debby Sargeant, the document's primary
author. "We realized that we didn't have all of the answers, so we decided to develop a reference
document for us and others to use. In the past, bacterial contamination of water was often blamed
on sewage treatment plants, but today we know that many different sources can be to blame,
including runoff from livestock operations, failing septic tanks, an overabundance of geese or deer,
or other nonpoint sources."
Sargeant compiled information on the available methods for identifying human versus nonhuman
sources of fecal contamination in surface waters. The document describes each method, lists the
advantages and disadvantages of each, and provides examples of application. The methods detailed
in the document include the following:
Microbiological Methods
• Fecal Coliform-to-Fecal Streptococci Ratios. Different ratios indicate the presence of human or
nonhuman bacteria
• Streptococcal Population Profiles. Species composition is used to indicate host animals. Composi-
tion varies among types of animals and has been quantified for human, nonhuman, and dairy.
• Species-specific Indicators. Some bacteria strains are specific to certain animal species and can be
identified as originating within that animal group. For example, Rhodococcm coprophilus is
primarily associated with domestic farm animal fecal pollution.
• Bacteriophages/Coliphages and Viruses. Phages are viruses that infect bacteria—they can
multiply in sewage and therefore can be used to indicate the presence of human fecal pollution.
• Multiple Antibiotic Resistance. Bacteria are analyzed for their resistance to various antibiotics.
Bacteria from humans would be expected to show resistance to the antibiotics typically used in
humans, whereas bacteria from dairy would show resistance only to antibiotics used in dairy
operations.
• DNA Ribotyping/Genetic Fingerprinting. Ribosomal RNA(rRNA) genetic information is
isolated from a pure bacteria culture grown from bacteria found in a water sample. This
information is compared to a known sample of bacteria rRN A such as one from a human. If the
rRN A information for the unknown bacteria matches that for the known sample, the researcher
knows the bacteria are derived from the same strain (in this example, a human source).
Chemical Methods
• Detergents/Optical Brighteners. These chemicals are associated with laundry discharge and
might indicate human waste discharge from leaky septic tanks. The chemicals are absorbed by
cotton in surface water and can be seen when viewed under ultraviolet light.
10
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Washington
Scientists Explain
How to Track Down
Bacteria
(continued)
u Caffeine. Has been proposed as an indicator of human fecal pollution.
• Coprostanol. Coprostanol forms as a byproduct of the bacterial breakdown of cholesterol in the
body and is proposed as an indicator of human fecal pollution.
Other Methods
• Fluorescent Dye Tracing. If dye is introduced into an onsite septic system that is suspected of
leaking, charcoal in the receiving water body absorbs the dye, indicating that a leak is present.
• Land-use-based Site Selection. Land-use information can be used to select monitoring sites that
can help pinpoint potential bacterial sources. For example, GIS overlays of specific sources can be
used to select monitoring sites to determine relative pollutant contributions from each source.
Each method has advantages and disadvantages. "Unfortunately, we discovered that there is no
sure-fire, inexpensive way to go. You have to keep track of the new methods that become
available," notes Sargeant. "In fact, it is likely that new information has been published since our
document was printed in October 1999." When choosing a method, Sargeant recommends
researchers consider the types of sources likely to be in the water, the pollutant loading mechanis ms
and time frame, the type of medium being sampled (fresh water, sea water), and the budget. To
date, the DNAribotyping/genetic fingerprinting method has been used most often. Sargeant notes,
however, that other promising techniques on the horizon include improved DN Atechniques,
multiple antibiotic resistance, bacteriophages, and method combinations.
The document, available on the Internet at www.ecy.wagov/biblio/99345.html, is organized by
method type and includes an appendix summarizing the typical microbiological indicators used in
bacterial assessments.
[For more information, contact Debby Sargeant, Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental
Assessment Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600. Phone (360) 407-6684; e-mail:
dsar461@ecy. wa.gov.]
Optical Brighteners to Shed Light on Sewer and Septic Tank Leaks
Do you suspect your stream is being polluted by leaking septic or sewer
systems? Two Massachusetts groups, the Ipswich Coastal Pollution
Control Committee and the Gloucester Shellfish Department/ Shellfish
Advisory Commission, have developed a handbook explaining how to
use an inexpensive detection method—optical brighteners. The two
groups are using optical brightener testing as part of a larger sampling
effort to help identify leaking septic systems, leaky sewage pipes, and
storm drain cross connections, and differentiate human and nonhuman
wastes in streams emptying into Ipswich Bay.
The two groups found the test for optical brighteners, a common dye
in laundry effluent, to be a reliable indicator and volunteered to
develop an Optical Brightener Handbook to serve as a reference. They
Optical brighteners are
fluorescent white dyes
that are added to
almost all laundry soaps
and detergents to make
cotton fabric look whiter.
Some optical brightener
is discharged with the
laundry effluent into a
household's wastewater
stream. Therefore, the
presence of optical
brighteners in a surface
water body may
indicate an upstream
source of wastewater.
cooperated with the Eight Towns and the Bay (8T&B) Committee to make the document available
on the Internet at www.thecompass.org/8TB/pages/SamplingContents.html. The 8T&B
Committee is a coalition of nine communities on the coast of Ipswich Bay that cooperate on
initiatives to improve the environmental quality of the bay and its watershed. The Committee
believes that by sharing the handbook it can assist other communities and small groups that want
to conduct optical brightening sampling. "I believe that this method is one of the most exciting
and effective tools available to detect wastewater in the environment for volunteers and
professionals alike," notes Wayne Castonguay, coauthor of the document and a member of the
Ipswich Coastal Pollution Control Committee.
Optical Brightener Handbook
As an introduction to the method, the handbook defines optical brighteners and reviews the
historical use of dyes for tracing leaking septic systems and other uses. It then provides sampling
program guidance, emphasizing the need to combine optical brightener data with other data such
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
11
-------
Optical Brighteners
to Shed Light on
Sewer and Septic
Tank Leaks
(continued)
Interpreting Optical
Brightener Data
Often, the presence of optical
brighteners indicates a sewage
leak. In one instance, the
authors found a positive optical
brightener test in combination
with a high bacteria count at a
storm drain outfall in
Gloucester, an area that was
completely sewered. Additional
sampling up through the drain
system pinpointed a leaky
sewer pipe as the culprit. The
city has since repaired the pipe
as part of numerous upgrades
to its sewer system.
Other Uses for
Optical Brighteners
as rainfall, bacteria sampling, flow data, and field observations.
The handbook includes a sample data sheet, a list of necessary
materials, and requirements for quality control.
After helping to establish a program, the handbook explains how
to test for optical brighteners by placing cotton pad "traps" in
the surface water body of concern. During seven days in the
water, the pads absorb any optical brightener present in the
water column. After the collection period, the pads are dried and
returned to the laboratory, where an ultraviolet light is used to
show whether any optical brightener is present. The handbook
recommends that samples be taken only from storm drains,
pipes, and small streams, because the volume of water in larger
water bodies might dilute optical brightener concentrations
beyond detection. It also provides a summary of the data
collected from the city of Gloucester to show what a watershed
group might expect if they perform similar testing.
The most challenging step is data interpretation. The handbook includes a protocol for boxing in
pollution sources using bacterial loading and optical brightener sampling. For example, if data
taken under dry (low-flow) conditions indicate high bacterial loading and optical brightener, the
authors suggest that the bacteria are likely due to failing septic systems. In this case, successive
samples for bacteria and optical brightener should be taken upstream until the source is located.
Program Costs and Benefits
The material costs (mesh, cotton pads, UV light, and other items) for the Massachusetts groups'
optical brightener sampling program are low — only about $450. However, labor costs are high
because personnel must visit each site twice (placement and retrieval), complete paperwork, and
care for the sampling equipment. The handbooks suggest that a two-person team can comfortably
visit between 12 and 15 stations per day, so costs are determined by the hourly rate of the
personnel and the number of sampling sites. "I see optical brightener sampling as a great tool for
grassroots groups. It is a labor-intensive process but fairly inexpensive," explains Dave Sargent,
coauthor of the document and a member of the Gloucester Shellfish Advisory Commission.
Optical brightener sampling has helped reduce the fecal pollution entering the Ipswich Bay. "It's a
really good tool. But," Sargent hastens to mention, "it needs to be used with another form of
bacterial sampling before you can take enforcement action." Sargent notes that the optical
brightener sampling program has been ongoing for years and has uncovered numerous problems,
including leaky municipal sewage systems and "many, many septic tanks that need to be upgraded.
Most people understand the need to fix the failing system and are willing to work with us,
although we've had to take enforcement action against some."
The optical brightener sampling program has continued to be a success
because "it is truly a cooperative effort," explains Sargent. In Gloucester's
program, many state and local agencies, including the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries, the Gloucester Health Department, and the
Gloucester Shellfish Department contribute personnel time for collecting
and analyzing fecal coliform and optical brightener samples; much of the
coordination of the optical brightener sampling program is done by
volunteers who see the need to improve water quality in their communities.
Optical brighteners are being used frequently
in urban areas to identify illicit discharges to
storm drains. In 1999 the Northern Virginia
Planning District Commission (NVPDC)
performed optical brightener analysis on 173
samples from storm drains leading to Four
Mile Run in the suburbs of Washington, D.C,
The study even identified one illegal hook-up
of a hotel laundry facility. The optical
brightener study complemented a larger DNA
genetic analysis study to identify the sources
of bacteria in the watershed. For more
information on the NVPDC study, see
www.novaregion.org/4MileRun/bacteria.htm.
Spreading the Word
The Massachusetts groups' success with the optical brightener approach has
not gone unnoticed. Recently they have worked with organizations and
communities throughout the state and the nation. "We get a lot of phone
calls from people wanting more information. We've offered free training in
optical brightener sampling for Massachusetts shellfish officers, have worked
closely with local board of health agents, and are providing free technical
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Optical Brighteners to support for a sampling program in Chattanooga, Tennessee," notes Sargent. "We've even been
Shed Light on Sewer and contacted by an agency in Spokane, Washington."
beptic lank Leaks [For more information, contact Dave Sargent, Gloucester Shellfish Advisory Commission, 637 Essex
(continued) Avenue, Gloucester, MA 01930, Phone: (978) 281-3981, e-mail: gsgt@massed.net, or Wayne Castonguay,
Ipswich Coastal Pollution Control Committee, 47 Clark Fload, Ipswich, MA 01938. Phone: (978) 412-2569.
Protecting Ground Water on the Garden Peninsula
The beautiful but environmentally fragile Garden Peninsula juts out into northwestern Lake
Michigan in eastern Delta County, Michigan. Problems with leaky septic systems and nonpoint
source runoff in this rural area of sinkholes, fractures, a high water table, and shallow soil
prompted the Delta-Menominee District Health Department (DMDHD) to take action. As
John Petrasky, MD, MPH, Medical Director/Health Officer of the DMDHD graphically states,
"People shouldn't be drinking their own sewage." By targeting failing septic systems for upgrade
and educating the community, the DMDHD has made great progress toward protecting the
region's ground water quality.
Geology and Water Quality
The region's geology leaves ground water supplies vulnerable to contamination. The Garden
Peninsula is underlain by an aquifer composed of a limestone and dolomite bedrock formation
typically located less than five feet below the surface of the ground. In many areas, the rock is at the
ground surface. The bedrock is marked with fractures and sinkholes, allowing nonpoint source
runoff and poorly treated wastewater from onsite systems to enter the ground water. In some cases,
perennial or seasonal streams flow into the openings in the bedrock and disappear. To compound
the problem, a high water table further reduces the depth of the unsaturated zone of soil that
would otherwise help filter contaminated water.
This vulnerable bedrock aquifer is the primary drinking water source for the region's 1,000
residents and 70,000 yearly visitors. Unfortunately, the wastewater disposal needs of the people ar e
served by septic systems perched above the same aquifer. When the region's geological limitations
cause a septic system to function poorly, everyone's water supply is at risk. Luckily, the DMDHD
recognized the potential human health threat and secured a section 319 grant to identify and
alleviate sources of pollutants. The DMDHD's project, known as the Garden Peninsula Aquifer
Protection Project (GPAPP), includes development of an aquifer protection plan; identification of
sinkholes, disappearing streams, and fractures throughout the peninsula; an inventory of potential
contamination threats; and efforts to target priority problems with cost-share funds.
Project Activities
To help residents understand the importance of the project, the DMDHD sampled the well water
of 141 residents. The findings were startling from a public health perspective: 16 percent of
samples tested positive for Escherichia coll, indicating that human or animal sewage is making its
way into the ground water. An additional 49 percent of samples tested positive for general coliform
bacteria, indicating that other disease-causing bacteria, viruses, protozoans, or organisms might also
be present. The DMDHD believes that the coliform results indicate a source of surface water
input. Only 35 percent of the samples analyzed did not indicate the presence of coliform bacteria
The high number of positive tests showed that the DMDHD was correct to be concerned about
the potential risk for residents to contract a waterborne disease.
Although they don't expect their project to solve the contamination problems, the DMDHD hopes
it will help. 'There are many sources, including natural ones, that as a health department, we won't
be able to address," explains the DMDHD's Lori Schultz, "We are focusing our pollution
reduction activities on the human sources that release waterborne diseases into the environment.
We've raised people's awareness of the issue, which is very important. Many people had no idea of
the quality of their water."
Once the community was informed and involved, the DMDHD began to target priority pollution
problems. To date the DMDHD has focused on repairing or replacing failed septic systems, using
alternative and emerging technology where appropriate. In most cases where the soil was too shallow
to support a conventional system, the DMDHD encouraged the use of a pressurized mound, a
system known for its success in the area In a couple of cases the DMDHD installed other types of
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 13
-------
Protecting Ground alternative systems as deemed appropriate for the site. Using section 319 cost-share funds, the
Water on the DMDHD has funded 75 percent of the cost of repairing or replacing 11 failed septic systems.
fcontinued) ^ replacement septic systems funded by GPAPP—whether conventional, mound, or other
alternative systems—have effluent filters. The filters are installed at the outlet of the septic tank
and stop solids from exiting with the effluent. These units should extend the life of all systems
because the drainfields will not become clogged by solids that degrade slowly or are not
biodegradable. The filters should last the life of the system because although they will clog, they
can be rinsed off and reused. The effluent filters are another innovation that will promote the
proper functioning and long life of these septic systems.
The DMDHD has also focused its efforts on educating residents so they can make informed
decisions regarding their own practices and the safety of their water supply. GPAPP has held three
well-attended public meetings at which speakers discussed ground water conditions on the
peninsula At the public meetings and through the biannual GPAPP newsletters, the DMDHD
encourages individuals to take action to help reduce bacterial contamination, including raising
buried wellheads, sealing abandoned wells, diverting surface water from sinkholes and fractures,
and modifying agricultural management practices to reduce the input of bacteria and other
pollutants into the ground water.
The educational efforts have paid off Some residents who had been drinking their tap water have
chosen to obtain alternative supplies or to treat their drinking water to minimize their risk of
waterborne disease. After attending one of the public meetings, one resident replaced a straight
pipe that had been discharging directly into a fracture with anew septic system. These successes are
only a start. Many residents now understand the natural conditions that make the peninsula
susceptible to ground water contamination and how their actions can affect drinking water quality.
Community Support
This project would not be as successful as it is without the participation and support of a diverse
community steering committee. The commitee members represent the Garden Peninsula
professionally and geographically. 'This community is incredibly close-knit," remarks Schultz.
'The steering committee members work hard to spread the word about the project in the
community. They are willing to talk to people who have pollution problems to encourage them to
participate." Like many rural communities, residents on the Garden Peninsula are wary of
regulatory agents. Without the backing of the steering committee, few residents would have
participated, dooming the project to failure.
The project also has improved DMDHD's relationship with the community, notes Schultz. 'X)n the
Garden Peninsula, many viewed us negatively as a regulatory agency. Through this project we've
gained a much better working relationship. We can now work cooperatively to plan for the future,
including exchanging ideas about zoning and other planning tools to protect their ground water."
[For more information, contact Lori Schultz, Delta-Menominee District Health Department, 2920 College
Ave, Escanaba, Ml 49829. Phone: (906) 789-8138; e-mail: lschultz@dmdhd.localhealth.net.]
Septic Systems for Dogs?
"Picking up after your pooch" became much easier after the town of Clifton Park, New York,
established a dog park with its own waste treatment system. Owners may allow their dogs to roam
freely in the fenced enclosure, but they must place the dogs' waste into the on-site treatment
system to prevent it from accumulating and running off when it rains.
Thought to be the first of its kind in the state, the Mary Jane Roe Dog Park has become
increasingly popular since it was established in October 1999. 'The town requires that pet owners
obtain a permit to use the dog park. We have already issued f 82 permits, and the number is
growing every day," notes Jason Kemper, the town's environmental specialist.
Along with popularity comes a pile of pet waste. Foreseeing the potential environmental and
aesthetic problems, the town incorporated a treatment system into the dog park plan. 'The park
has several low-lying areas with hydric soils. Surface water runs off the park area through a small
wetland and into a nearby stream," explained Kemper. "We were concerned about surface runoff
14 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Septic Systems from the site, as well as the mess and odors associated with the large quantities of waste that would
for Dogs? be generated."
(continued)
The Treatment System
When the park first opened, the town installed an in-ground stool digester designed to break down
the pet waste by using enzymes and a bacteria additive. The cold New York winter inhibited the
degradation processes, however, causing the waste (and dog owner complaints) to accumulate. The
growing popularity of the park also placed added pressure on the already insufficient system.
By late winter the town realized that the digester would not meet the park's annual treatment
needs. The town voted to install a 500-gallon sealed underground septic tank that could be
pumped out once a year or on an as-needed basis. Although no money was set aside in fiscal year
2000 to support the installation of the new $700 system, the town proceeded with the project this
summer, using contingency funds. Eventually, the cost of the tank will be offset by the annual $20
permit fees paid by each dog park user. The fees are directed into the town's general fund, out of
which $700 is set aside annually to support the dog park's maintenance needs such as fence repair
and new poop scoopers.
Environmental Concerns
Although the soils in the park are frequently wet, the tank shouldn't pose any risk of leaching pet
waste into the ground water. 'The tank is constructed of concrete and was placed below the frost
line, so it will not leak or crack," explains Kemper. It is 96 inches long, 62 inches wide, and 38
inches high and was buried a foot below the ground surface. A covered chute, 10 inches wide and
2 feet deep, allows pet owners to deposit their pet's waste directly into the tank.
As the town of Clifton Park strives to meet the recreational and waste treatment needs of all its
two-legged and four-legged citizens, the challenges the town has overcome serve as a model for
other growing areas struggling to meet similar needs. Thanks to Clifton Park, other municipalities
might see the major benefits of providing dogs with a place of their own. Not only will the dogs
and owners be happy, but the town can also consolidate and treat pet waste, rather than see it
scattered throughout the residential areas waiting for the next storm to wash it away.
[For more information, contact Jason Kemper, Environmental Specialist, One Town Hall Plaza, Clifton
Park, NY 12065. Phone (518) 371-6651 x229; fax (518) 371-1136; e-mail: kempjay@hotmail.com.]
New York Onsite Waste water Treatment Training Network Underway!
In New York state, professionals in all aspects of onsite wastewater treatment systems are getting
training that presents current, advanced, technologically correct information that is consistent with
state regulations.
TheNewYork State Onsite Wastewater Treatment Training Network currently offers courses
including: Foundations of Onsite Wastewater Treatment, Site Evaluation for Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems, and Regulatory Plan Review of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. More
courses are being developed to reach audiences from homeowners to municipal code enforcement
officials, in topics ranging from evaluating existing systems to setting up management districts.
Training is currently given at the Morrisville campus of the State University of New York, which
has also had a technology demonstration site. Training will soon be offered at other locations across
the state as well.
Funding for developing and implementing the training program has been a collaborative effort of
industry and governmental agencies. The National Onsite Demonstration Project provided funds
to develop the demonstration site, as did industry sponsors. The state Department of Environ-
mental Conservation is applying CWA section 319 monies to support staff and provide a tuition
stipend to local officials. The Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Association
contributed to signs at the facility.
[For more information, contact Douglas Nelson (Nelsondj@morrisville.edu), or Larry Kinne
(Kinnelw@morrisville.edu), NYS Onsite Wastewater Treatment Training Network, SUNY Morrisville,
Shannon Hall, Morrisville, NY 13408, Phone: 315-684-6673.]
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 15
-------
Notes on the National Scene
New Nonpoint Source Management Partnership Kicked Off
The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) and
EPAhave joined to form the new State/EPA Nonpoint Source Management Partnership. The
Partnership provides an excellent framework for states and EPA to work together cooperatively to
identify, prioritize, and solve nonpoint source problems.
The states and EPA initiated the new partnership at a national nonpoint source meeting sponsored
j ointly by ASIWPCA and EPA in April 2000, when the two came together to identify high-priority
nonpoint source issues on which they want to work together through their Clean Water Act
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Programs. Over the past several years, states have been
working hard to upgrade and improve their section 319 programs. The new partnership should
help the states identify and satisfy their technical and programmatic needs as they implement their
newly enhanced NPS programs.
The partnership has established seven work groups to focus on nonpoint source needs, including
watershed planning and implementation, rural nonpoint sources, urban nonpoint sources,
nonpoint source grants management, nonpoint source capacity building and funding, information
transfer and outreach, and nonpoint source results. Each work group is composed of a chair and
cochair (one EPA and one state), as well as other EPA and state representatives. A steering
committee, consisting of the chairpersons of each individual work group, has also been established
to oversee the new partnership. Roberta Savage, Executive Director of ASIWPCA, and the Director
of the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division at EPA, cochair the steering committee.
Each work group has identified its needs and priorities and has developed individual action plans
to address those needs over the next several years. Highlights of the work groups' priorities include
the following:
• Watershed Planning and Implementation Workgroup. Strengthening the links between
nonpoint source assessment and implementation activities by sharing examples of nonpoint source
TMDLs/watershed management approaches and related useful tools; facilitating flexible
approaches to watershed problemsolving across EPA and other federal/state agencies and programs.
• Rural Nonpoint Sources Workgroup. Providing technical guidance to states in developing and
implementing Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans; surveying and facilitating the
distribution of educational materials relating to Animal Feeding Operations and Confined Animal
Feeding Operations; sharing information on rural BMP effectiveness and research gaps.
• Urban Nonpoint Sources Workgroup. Identifying effective BMPs; providing support for
municipal storm water program activities.
• Nonpoint Source Grants Management Workgroup. Exploring options to Streamline and
simplify the section 319 grant awards process; developing or sharing examples of ways to enhance
the involvement of local communities in nonpoint source activities with federal and state financial
support.
• Nonpoint Source Capacity Building and Funding Workgroup. Researching successful State
financial and program capacity-building programs; identifying measures of success; collecting good
examples of effective state marketing tools.
• Information Transfer and Outreach Workgroup. Researching existing nonpoint source-related
education materials and developing a good model for integrating such materials into school
curricula; and conducting a media campaign to educate the general public about nonpoint source
problems.
• Nonpoint Source Results Workgroup. Enhancing state and national systems to enable EPA to
report more accurately and comprehensively to both Congress and the general public about what is
being accomplished through implementation of the nonpoint source program.
16 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
New Nonpoint The Partnership plans to communicate workgroup activities and accomplishments through
Source Management Nonpoint Source News-Notes, nonpoint source listservers, future EPA web site updates, and other
Partnership means, in addition to interaction at scheduled stakeholder meetings.
. Kicked Off
EPA and ASIWPC A are excited about the new partnership, believing that this effort will capitalize
on, benefit from, and support the newly enhanced and upgraded nonpoint source management
(continued) programs. "By anticipating program needs and using our collective resources and expertise to
address them in a coordinated manner, states and EPA will be able to greatly enhance nonpoint
source management programs," states Savage.
[For more information, contact Stacie Craddock, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, USEPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 260-3788; fax: (202) 260-1977;
e-mail: craddock.stacie@epa.gov; or Linda Eichmiller, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators, 750 First Street, NE, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20002. Phone: (202) 898-0905;
fax: (202) 898-0929; e-mail: l.eichmiller@asiwpca.org.]
Exploring the Realm of Enforceable Nonpoint Source Controls
Nonpoint source pollution control is difficult to enforce. The sources and responsible parties are
just too diffuse to get a handle on. But some states are finding ways to do it. In June the
Environmental Law Institute (ELI) in Washington, DC, released a report that examines the efforts
of eight states to use enforceable mechanisms as part of their programs for the control of nonpoint
source pollution. ELI's report, Putting the Pieces Together: State Nonpoint Source Enforceable
Mechanisms in Context, builds on several of ELI's prior studies addressing available nonpoint source
enforcement mechanisms.
ELI's watershed-based study details the enforcement methods used by Georgia, Maine, Maryland,
Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. "States are increasingly adopting new provisions to
deal with water pollution issues," explains James McElfish, one of the document's authors. "States
divide technical assistance and enforcement responsibilities for nonpoint source pollution control
in many different ways." In its analysis, ELI focused on (1) the tools used by each state's nonpoint
source control program; (2) how the state's enforcement programs tied into its cost-share, technical,
and voluntary assistance programs; and (3) how the methods tried successfully in each state could
be applied in other states.
Common Enforcement Issues
Using the eight case study states, ELI identified five major enforcement-related findings that local,
state, and federal officials should consider when developing or modifying a nonpoint source
pollution control program.
/. Enforcement is already a small part of the strategic mix to control nonpoint sources.
"Although enforcement wasn't the primary control mechanism in any state, all the states we looked
at have some enforcement capabilities built into their programs," notes McElfish. Each state has
enforceable mechanisms in place for some nonpoint source pollution problems, such as timber
harvesting or land clearing activities that are not subject to NPDES permitting. "State program
managers realize that voluntary requirements do not always prevent the pollution from occurring
and sometimes enforceable mechanisms are required."
2. Enforcement authority can be linked to operating requirements or standards and can be
integrated into a watershed plan.
States have two kinds of enforcement mechanisms in their programs: (1) those that are activated
after the pollution occurs, such as after water quality standards are exceeded because of a dischar ge,
or (2) those that prevent pollution from occurring, such as erosion control requirements. ELI noted
that programs that emphasize pollution prevention are more successful than those that rely on
punishment after pollution has occurred. For example, Oregon requires farmers to comply with
water quality management plans that are designed to prevent pollution. State law provides
enforcement authority when compliance is not achieved. ELI also noted that many states have
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 17
-------
Exploring the Realm
of Enforceable
Nonpoint Source
Controls
(continued)
linked their programs to watershed assessment and planning, which provides them greater
accountability and measures of program effectiveness.
3. Cost-share mechanisms continue to play a substantial role, particularly for agricultural sources.
All eight states rely primarily on cost-share and technical assistance to control nonpoint source
pollution from agricultural lands. Several states in the study (Maryland, Virginia, and Wisconsin)
supplement federal cost-share funds with substantial state-funded cost-share programs. Some states
also provide tax breaks to encourage BMP implementation. The ELI report explains that states
have found it difficult to combine supportive agricultural programs with enforcement measures in
the same agency. Often, the agency that administers cost-share and technical assistance programs
for the agricultural sector seeks to distance itself from any association with enforcement.
"Unfortunately, unless enforcement is well coordinated, this separation can be inefficient," explai ns
McElfish. "In some cases, when the support agency has exhausted its efforts to convince a person
to fix a problem, the referral to the enforcement agency leads to the initiation of the cajoling
process all over again prior to issuing an order or penalties, which simply defers compliance."
Sample Enforcement Mechanisms
in Maryland
For the agricultural sector, Maryland focuses its
water quality improvement efforts on cost-share,
technical assistance, and voluntary programs, using
enforcement tools primarily as a backup measure.
Land development and forestry activities, on the
other hand, must comply with enforceable
requirements adopted by counties under state
legislation. The spectrum of enforcement
mechanisms used in Maryland includes:
•/ No Discharge. State law prohibits discharges
of any pollutant to waters of the state. The
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
can enforce this law with hefty fines.
•/ Soil or Sediment Discharges. State law
prevents discharge of soil or sediment to waters
of the state except as authorized. MDE can
impose fines or imprisonment for violators.
•/ Maryland's Water Quality Improvement
Act. This 1998 law requires farmers to prepare
and implement nutrient management plans. If a
farmer fails to implement a plan under the
appropriate schedule, the Maryland Department
of Agriculture can impose fines. People hired to
apply commercial fertilizer to nonagricultural
land are also subject to fines if they apply
fertilizer improperly.
•/Grading and Land Clearing Permits.
MDE and county/local government conduct an
enforceable permitting process for forestry
activities and land clearing and development.
Enforcement includes stop work orders,
corrective action orders, injunctions, fines, and
imprisonment.
•/ Forest Conservation Requirements.
State law requires that a developer comply with
the local forest conservation program to obtain
a grading/land clearing permit. If a develop-
ment violates the local program, the local
authority or state can impose stop work orders,
injunctions, and fines.
4. Geographically targeted enforceable protections are significant
features of state nonpoint source programs,
Many states have begun developing enforceable nonpoint source
pollution control laws for particular geographical areas. For example,
the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program in Texas places special
emphasis on reducing pollution in sensitive aquifer recharge areas.
Georgia's River Corridor Protection Program requires local
governments to develop plans to protect rivers from the impact of
human activities on land adjacent to the rivers.
5. Enforcement procedures are more effective when simple to use
and prompt in their effect.
In all states, nonpoint source pollution controls begin with emphasis
an on voluntary efforts. These efforts can take time. Therefore, to be
most effective, state enforcement programs should allow quick action
when necessary. Wisconsin, for example, can issue "abatement orders"
at the state level for most nonpoint source problems, but the process is
complicated and can require up to a year to complete. Instead,
Wisconsin relies heavily on counties to handle violations through
enforcement of local ordinances for control of erosion, control of
stormwater runoff, and livestock and manure management. Locally
enforceable mechanisms like these are visible tools that are both timely
and effective.
Enforcement Mechanisms on the Rise
Through its research, ELI discovered that increasing numbers of states
are supplementing traditional nonpoint source controls with
enforceable mechanisms. "Based on our research, we are confident that
most states will continue to integrate more enforcement capabilities
into their programs. However, not all states will do so, or do so for all
sectors, without some incentive from the federal government," adds
McElfish. ELI believes that continued improvement in state nonpoint
source programs will require accountability for water quality, adequate
state and federal funding, and the use of enforcement measures.
[ELI's report, as well as the previous reports in the series, are available on
the Internet at www.eli.org. For more information, contact James McElfish,
Environmental Law Institute, 1616 P Street., NW, Suite 200, Washington,
DC 20036. Phone: (202) 939-3800; e-mail: mcelfish@eli.org.]
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Notes from the States, Tribes, and Localities
Northeast Heronry Suffers the Effects of Development
Fort Delaware, located on Pea Patch Island in the upper Delaware Estuary, was once used by nion
soldiers to protect the ports of Wilmington and Philadelphia Today it is the island's inhabitants
themselves who need protection.
According to the Delaware Coastal Management Program (DCMP), the 310-acre island is home to
the second largest heron rookery (heronry) on the Atlantic Coast. These wading birds nest on the
island and forage in quiet seclusion in the surrounding coastal wetlands that line the coasts of
Delaware and New Jersey. In 1989 Pea Patch Island's heron population peaked at 12,000 nesting
pairs, but recently the number of nesting pairs has plummeted to only 3,000. Why? Among other
factors, these fragile birds are losing ground to suburban sprawl and the nonpoint source pollution
that comes along with it.
In 1996 the DCMP, under the authority of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
began to develop a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the Pea Patch Island heronry with
the goal of detailing how to preserve and protect this natural resource. Representatives from local,
state, and federal government agencies, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and industries formed
the Pea Patch Island Core Group to identify problems and to develop management strategies to
address them. Implemented initially in February 1998, the Pea Patch Island Heronry Region
SAMP focuses on seven priority issues—habitat change and development, pesticides,
contaminants, oil spills and industrial accidents, habitat improvement and protection, human
disturbance, and outreach and education. An Implementation Team staffed by relevant resource
management agencies and key stakeholder groups is responsible for overseeing the progress of
strategies and achievement of goals.
Habitat Change and Development
As is true in many regions of the country, the area surrounding Pea Patch Island is experiencing a
suburban population explosion and a subsequent demand for more housing. In fact, in New Castle
County, Delaware, the population of the area is expected to double over the next 20 years. Rapid
suburban growth associated with cities like Bear, Christiana, and Middletown, swallows up
agricultural lands and wetlands that were once foraging and nesting grounds for the
birds. In addition to the direct loss of habitat, the area is slowly being covered with
impervious surfaces like parking lots, rooftops, and roadways. These surfaces funnel
storm water filled with sediment, nutrients, and other contaminants directly to the
low-lying wetlands and eventually to the Delaware River.
In the SAMP, the Core Group identifies several strategies to address the impacts of growth
and development. The strategies include developing aland preservation tool box,
establishing an awards program to recognize program owners and developers who preserve
natural areas, and developing criteria for determining riparian buffer design standards. The
DCMP worked with New Castle County to ensure the inclusion of riparian buffers. To
complement this effort, at Delaware's October 1999 Coast Day, DCMP unveiled anew
GIS application that will enable planners, landowners, farmers, and resource managers to
increase the use and effectiveness of riparian buffers and target urban and agricultural areas.
The application will help create new buffer design criteria that will specify width,
vegetation type and distribution, and local conditions in Delaware's watersheds.
Species Found in the
Pea Patch Island
Heronry
Great Blue Heron
* Great Egret
* Snowy Eg ret
4 Cattle Egret
* Glossy Ibis
* Tri-colored Heron
* Little Blue Heron
A Black-crowned Night Heron
Yellow-crowned Night Heron
Pesticides
Pesticides from area golf courses, lawns, and other landscaped areas pose a severe threat to the health
of the birds of Pea Patch Island. Pesticide exposure can result in acute and chronic toxicity at
sufficient exposure levels. Tests have shown that some species on the island currently have lowered
levels of cholinesterase, an enzyme used in nerve-to-nerve transmissions. Lowered levels often indi cate
exposure to certain types of pesticides (like organophosphate and carbamate pesticides) and result in
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
19
-------
Northeast Heronry behavioral changes such as lethargy or inattentiveness to nests, -which can affect the survival oft he
Suffers the Effects of young. The SAMP Implementation Team plans to expand pest management education and conduct
Development additional studies of pesticide use within the study area and its effects on the birds.
(continued)
Contaminants
Along with a population explosion and increased demand for housing comes an increase in
industrial activity, specifically waste disposal activities. Sediment contaminated by industrial
effluent and runoff from landfills, underground storage tanks, and other disposal sites is ingested by
macroin vertebrates, which are then eaten by bottom-feeding fish. Many of the Pea Patch Island birds
forage on these bottom-feeding fish along the Delaware River wetlands. Because these foraging birds
are near the top of the food chain, they tend to bioaccumulate the contaminants, which can
eventually kill them or decrease their reproduction. The Implementation Team is evaluating and
assessing the impacts of dredging and disposal sites in the study area, establishing water quality
criteria that will protect the birds' habitat, and studying specific contaminants of concern.
Oil Spills and Industrial Accidents
Oil spills and industrial accidents often have immediate impacts on the birds and their habitat. In
addition to the impacts of the spilled material itself, materials and methods used to respond to and
clean up a spill might also cause problems. The SAMP Implementation Team members have
assisted with an effort to place boom anchoring buoys around half of the island to contain oil
spills. They will soon host a workshop that will focus on developing better plans for emergency
response during spills. These emergency plans will include protocols on handling and caring for
birds caught up in spills. These actions will dramatically increase accident response efficiency and
decrease heron injuries and losses.
Habitat Improvement and Protection
To ensure the longevity and stability of the Pea Patch Island heronry, it is essential that suitabl e
foraging and nesting habitats be protected, restored, created, and managed for wading birds, as wel 1
as other species. The Implementation Team plans to increase the number of wetland restoration
projects carried out in the study area, restore nesting habitat, and develop specific heronry criteria
for use in land acquisition and protection. These criteria are needed to help target and prioritize
lands for acquisition and/or protection that meet the foraging and nesting habitat requirement of
long-legged wading birds with the heronry. After one SAMP study showed the importance of the
marsh grass species phragmites—usually considered a nuisance—to the birds' nesting habitat on the
island, plans to eradicate the species with herbicide were halted.
Human Disturbance
Although Fort Delaware attracts 30,000 visitors each year, the heronry area itself is not accessibl e
without a special permit. However, other types of human disturbance such as deer hunting,
research efforts, low-flying aircraft, muskrat trapping, oil boom location and maintenance, and
pollution and wake from jet skis, can threaten the birds' habitat. The Implementation Team hopes
to lessen the efforts of human disturbance through several strategies, such as installing better
signage in the water and on the land surrounding the heronry nature preserve, maintaining a
vegetative buffer between Fort Delaware and the heronry, and restricting flights over the heronry.
DCMP also works to ensure that activities at Fort Delaware, such as cannon fire, do not harm the
birds directly or degrade their habitat.
Getting the Public Involved
Because the health of the heronry is directly linked to the quality of the surrounding habitat, Sus an
Love, a natural resource planner and Implementation Team member with the Delaware Coastal
Management Program, stresses that "the public can play a large role in protecting these areas by
following simple measures to reduce nonpoint source pollution, such as reducing the amount of
lawn fertilizers and pesticides they use or planting trees, grasses, or other vegetation in bare patches
to prevent soil erosion." She adds, "Contributions to local land conservation groups and educating
local decision-makers such as county council members, planners, and state legislators on the value
of this important resource are other ways the citizens of Delaware and New Jersey can help protect
theheron rookery."
20 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
The SAMP is based on an adaptive management approach and will be revised periodically to reflect
changes in land use, local priorities, and the bird population. By March 2001 DCMP and the
SAMP Implementation Team will release a status report on the activities carried out thus far under
the SAMP and suggestions on how the strategies spelled out in the plan could be modified to best
protect the birds and their fragile habitat.
[For more information, contact Susan Love, Delaware Coastal Management Program, Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, Dover, DE 19901.
Phone: (302) 739-3451; fax: (302) 739-2048; e-mail: slove@state.de.us.]
The Bosque Watershed Doesn't Waste Manure
Whoever said that manure was just animal waste! Ateam of legislators, state agencies, and a local
stakeholder group in Texas has found a way to combat nonpoint source pollution linked to excess
cow manure by turning what was once considered waste into a valuable resource. Texas
Representatives Kip Averitt and David Lengefeld and Senator David Sibley have worked with the
Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB), Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC), Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), the General Service
Commission (GSC), and the Bosque River Advisory Committee to develop an innovative
Composted Manure Incentive Program in the Bosque River watershed.
The Problem
The Bosque River headwaters are located in the Stephenville, Texas, area, about an hour's drive
southwest of Fort Worth. The river meanders through rural Erath County and runs by the towns
of Hico, Iredell, Meridian, and Clifton before seeping back into the ground at Valley Mills.
Extensive water quality monitoring on the river has revealed that phosphorus is the limiting
nutrient. ATMDL for the river is almost complete and TNRCC plans to submit the final TMDL
report to EPA for approval by the end of the year. Approximately 40,000 dairy cattle in the
watershed produce a huge quantity of phosphorus-laden manure every day. Most producers use the
manure to fertilize their fields, but many just pile it next to their barns. Rainwater carries nutr ients
from the manure to local streams, causing excessive algal growth.
The Solution
Linda Brookins, supervisor of TNRCC's Watershed Management Team; team members Carol
Whittington and Bill Carter; and Scott McCoy of TNRCC's Small Business and Industry
Assistance Section formed a project team that drafted a preliminary section 319 grant proposal to
EPA last year, outlining incentive payments to compost users. TNRCC's project team then met
with Representatives Averitt and Lengefeld, Senator Sibley, TSSWCB, TxDOT, and the Bosque
River Advisory Committee, whose membership included local politicians from towns and districts
within the watershed, environmental groups, dairy producers, composter associations, and other
concerned citizens, to put together a program to reduce phosphorus in the Bosque River.
The TNRCC project team's goal was to remove manure from the watershed. They realized that
there was a need for both manure disposal alternatives for producers in Erath County and good
quality compost outside the county. Since the county is rural, the cost of hauling the raw manure
to a compost facility and then hauling the finished compost to a buyer created a significant
challenge to operating a composting business in the area
The TNRCC project team set out to enlist state and local agencies to buy compost and create a
large, reliable initial market for the finished product. TNRCC has been awarded a section 319
grant from EPAto provide an incentive to these buyers. TNRCC will provide a flat incentive
payment of $5 per cubic yard of compost beneficially used by a participating agency. The incentive
payment is below the actual total cost of purchasing, transporting, and applying a cubic yard of
compost, but in some cases it will be more than the cost of just hauling the manure. TNRCC is
also developing a certification program for composting facilities used in the program. Currently,
the watershed has one proposed and three existing composting facilities.
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 21
-------
The Basque
Watershed Doesn't
Waste Manure
(continued)
TNRCC has teamed with TxDOT to provide the $5 incentive. "We plan," said TNRCC's McCoy,
"to remove 50 percent of the collectible dairy manure, which is about 260,000 cubic yards, from
the Bosque River watershed over the next three years." After submitting inquiries to seven TxDOT
districts near Stephenville, TNRCC has learned that the Fort Worth TxDOT District can use
60,000 cubic yards of finished compost per year. That is more than half the yearly goal. The Fort
Worth TxDOT District plans to use the compost to fertilize sediment and erosion control
plantings and to aid final stabilization on construction sites.
TSSWBC joined the effort with a proposal to offset transportation costs by applying for section
319 grant funds to finance hauling the raw manure from dairies to the compost facility. Erath and
the surrounding counties have more than 100 dairies, and TSSWCB has already received letters of
intent from 42. 'This project," explained TSSWCB TMDL/319 Program Coordinator Donna
Long, "is a multi-agency and bipartisan effort from state legislation." According to Lee Munz,
TSSWCB 319 Project Manager, the agency expects to receive the section 319 grant soon. These
funds will be used to reimburse producers for the cost of hauling the raw manure from the dairy to
the compost facility. After extensive research involving local haulers, the planning group establis hed
a reimbursement rate of $0.85 for the first mile and $0.125 for every additional mile to haul one
cubic yard of raw manure. The first mile is weighted to include the cost of loading the manure on
to the truck. Producers will be free to use any hauler. The Cross-Timbers Conservation District,
one of the project partners, will appoint a coordinator to manage tasks to be accomplished within
the watershed, such as issuing hauling cost reimbursements; conducting educational workshops;
and coordinating the interests and concerns expressed by the producers, composters, haulers, and
other interested citizens.
"The Big Spring project showed us
that the compost-seed mixture for
normal roadside maintenance,
erosion control, or repairs saves
about 20 percent of the cost of a
traditional seed-soil erosion
blanket," said TNRCC
Commissioner John Baker. "For
new construction, the savings jump
to about 60 percent."
Promoting compost use in May 1999, TNRCC and TxDOT held a
demonstration at a high way overpass in Big Spring to showcase the application
of compost on steep slopes, which can be a challenging task. The compost was
mixed with grass seed and mulch and was applied at a depth of three inches on
the slope. "We thought the compost would retain soil moisture, and help
conserve water when applied to highway rights-of-way," explained McCoy. By
mid-June, the barren slope was transformed into an area of lush grass. To
promote the benefits of using the compost-grass mixture, the two agencies have
conducted other demonstration projects at highway sites and are planning
more projects in the coming months. 'The Big Spring project showed us that
the compost-seed mixture for normal roadside maintenance, erosion control, or
repairs saves about 20 percent of the cost of a traditional seed-soil erosion
blanket," said TNRCC Commissioner John Baker. "For new construction, the
savings jump to about 60 percent."
The Benefits of Manure
The Composted Manure Incentive Program is a win-win solution for all stakeholders upstream,
downstream, and along the Bosque River. 'This is a water quality solution, not an industry
solution," said Averitt. "It has been rewarding to see all parties come together to address a probl em
that has festered for years." The dairy industry will benefit by having another means of waste
disposal without increased costs. More importantly, all residents in the Bosque River watershed wil 1
benefit from better water quality.
[For more information, contact Representative Kip Averitt, Phone: (254) 772-6225, e-mail:
kip.averitt@house.state, tx.us; Donna Long, Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board,
Phone: (254) 773-2250, e-mail: long@brc.tamus.edu; or Scott McCoy, Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, Phone: (512) 239-6774.]
22
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Notes on Watershed Management
Ski Resorts Pledge to Protect the Environment
The environment is a ski resort's most significant asset. But skiing, snowboarding, and countless
other summer recreational activities often come at the cost of the environment. This past summer
the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) and its partner organizations launched Sustainable
Slopes: The Environmental Charter for Ski Areas to help protect the very environment upon which
ski resorts depend. The Charter proposed ways that participating ski resorts can manage issues like
wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater runoff, and erosion and sedimentation, while
"demonstrating their commitment to good environmental stewardship," says Michael Berry,
National Ski Areas Association President.
The partner organizations include a host of federal, state, and local agencies such as EPA, USD A
Forest Service, the Conservation Law Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Leave
No Trace Inc., The Mountain Institute, and the U.S. Department of Energy. EPA supported the
development of the Environmental Charter and continues to support the initiative by providing
technical assistance from existing voluntary partnership programs such as the Water Alliance for
Voluntary Efficiency, the Waste Wise program dealing with solid waste, the Energy Star program
that promotes energy efficiency, and the agency's smart growth and development efforts.
Charter Overview
The Environmental Charter for Ski Areas is a voluntary initiative that holds participating ski areas
(winter and summer resort operations) to a broad set of principles that provide a framework for
implementing best management practices, assessing environmental performance, and setting goals
for future improvement. More than 160 ski areas, representing 31 states that host 70 percent of the
country's skiers/snowboarders, have already endorsed the Charter. To recognize the resorts'
participation, NSAA issues a "Sustainable Slopes" endorsement logo to each resort to display at
their facility and on their marketing materials.
NSAA and the partner organizations are hoping that all resorts in the country will endorse and
adopt the principles. Most of the resorts who have yet to endorse the Charter are small resorts
without the staffing and financial or technical ability to implement the principles. To address thi s
problem, the partner organizations will continue to develop tools and education programs that will
make it easier for all resorts to eventually endorse the principles.
The voluntary principles are meant to provide overall guidance to help ski resorts practice good
environmental stewardship. They are not a list of legal requirements that must be applied in every
situation. Since each ski resort operates in a unique local environment or ecosystem, each resort
reflects regional differences; therefore, each resort must make its own decision about how to achieve
sustainable use of natural resources. In other words, while individual resorts have the same overal 1
goal of implementing the Charter, they will need to choose different paths to get there.
The Principles
The principles in the Charter were developed through a collaborative effort by NSAA and the
partner organizations, and are intended to be updated periodically as needed. They focus on three
areas:
• Planning, Design, and Construction. The principles include: (1) engaging stakeholders in
dialogue on development plans and implementation; (2) planning and siting facilities to avoid
negative impacts on natural resources and to avoid sprawl; (3) designing new facilities to conserve
water, energy and materials; and (4) meeting or exceeding all regulatory requirements.
• Operations. The principles include: (1) optimizing efficiency and effectiveness of water uses
ski resort-wide; (2) protecting and minimizing wildlife and habitat impacts; (3) maintaining
minimum stream flows; (4) conserving water, energy and fuel; (5) managing wastewater
responsibly; (6) reducing all waste generated at the ski resorts; (7) reusing and recycling where
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 23
-------
The Basque
Watershed Doesn't
Waste Manure
(continued)
possible; (8) minimizing air quality impacts; (9) designing resorts to compliment the natural
environment, and (10) contributing to solutions to decrease transportation issues. Several
suggestions are offered for each resource. For example, to protect water quality, the Charter
suggests that ski resorts participate in watershed planning and management efforts, maintain
vegetative buffers along streams to improve natural filtration and protect habitat, and apply
appropriate stormwater management techniques and erosion and sediment control practices.
• Education and Outreach. The principles include: (1) promoting environmental education and
awareness and (2) enhancing the relationship between the ski area and stakeholders so that it
benefits the environment. Ski resorts are expected to promote the Environmental Code of the
slopes, a list designed to heighten the public's awareness about ways they can make sustainable use
of natural resources while participating in outdoor recreational activities. The code suggests that
the public practice energy conservation, participate in educational events and cleanup days
sponsored by the ski resort, and practice outdoor ethics like respecting wildlife and not littering
Based on information collected each year from the resorts, NSAA will issue an annual report card
to assess how well the participating resorts are meeting the goals outlined in the principles. To assist
with data collection, NSAA and the partner organizations plan to work together over the next few
years to set and achieve measurable goals for all the
principles. "We don't know what the goals will be
yet," explained Geraldine Hughes, NSAA's
Director of Public Policy. "But, for example, to
assess whether they are following the energy
conservation principle, we might ask them to note
whether they've achieved a certain percent
reduction in energy use." N SAA expects the
annual report to become more quantitative as the
program develops and grows. The report will be
issued each year in May and will be available on
the N SAA website (www.nsaa org).
Ski Resorts Respond
Several ski resorts have developed management plans based on the
Charter, including:
Crystal Mountain, Washington: Their Master Development Plan
includes several measures to address the protection of water
resources, including water reclamation and conservation. Under
this master plan, they have also developed management plans for
roads, trails, stormwater, and stream restoration. The management
plans are implemented to offset temporary and permanent
watershed impacts and monitoring is used to verify their
implementation, determine the effectiveness of the restoration, and
validate the maintenance or improvement of the watershed
functions.
Snoqualimie Pass, Washington: The Summit at Snoqualimie's
Master Development Plan will be similar to that of Crystal Lake.
However, the Summit must address key wildlife corridors that
represent the very heart of the Northern Spotted Owl controversy.
Any proposed expansion of facilities at the Summit must include
sufficient revegetation or preservation of previously cleared forest to
be determined neutral or beneficial to old growth forest. The
proposed development will be required to include up to 400 acres
to be dedicated for old growth forest preservation. In addition,
several areas within the ski terrain will be revegetated to improve
the aesthetics. This preservation/revegetation approach will benefit
skiers, wildlife, and watershed functions.
Westwood, California: Dyer Mountain is the only undeveloped
resort to endorse the environmental charter. In 1998, Dyer Mountain
Associates was formed and plans to develop a resort community
began to unfold. In 1999 several groups of consultants researched
existing data and conducted field investigations to locate key
habitats in environmentally sensitive areas, and any other
constraints to developing ski, golf, residential, and base-area
facilities. Based upon the vision for the recreational community and
the environment, the consultants determined that four elements
would drive the planning for the project, all targeted toward keeping
the sense of place that currently dominates the site. These elements
include emphasizing general environmental protection and using
innovative planning and design to avoid environmental impact,
while also offering the technology and recreational amenities
desired by the community.
Compliance Incentives
A series of incentives encourage ski resorts to
adopt and follow the Charter. First, by doing so,
ski resorts demonstrate their environmental
stewardship to customers and partner
organizations. Second, adopting and
implementing the principles results in a reduction
of waste and energy use, which benefits the
environment and resort profits. Third, partner
organizations will provide technical and/or
financial assistance to make improvements and
share data across the industry. Resorts can also win
an award, sponsored by the Skiing Company
(a Times Mirror company), for environmental
excellence based on the principles. And finally, by
following the Charter, ski resorts can ensure their
livelihood is sustainable for the future through
customer satisfaction and environmental
protection.
[For more information, contact Geraldine Hughes,
Director of Public Policy, National Ski Areas
Association, 133 South Van Gordon Street,
Lakewood, CO 80228. Phone: (303) 987-1111;
e-mail: nsaa@nsaa.org.]
24
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Golf Courses are Getting Greener
Is your golf course environmentally friendly enough? What about the golf industry as a -whole? The
Golf & the Environment Initiative is developing tools to help answer those questions. Formed in
1995, Golf & the Environment is a partnership of environmental leaders, golf industry executives,
and other interested organizations dedicated to expanding the environmental sustainability and
benefits of golf by communicating and collaborating with the golf industry, environmental groups,
developers, government organizations, media, and other relevant stakeholders.
In 1995, led by the Center for Resource Management, Golf & the Environment participants met
to discuss golfs environmental responsibilities and to help set environmental performance goals for
the golf industry. Their discussions led to the development of a 1996 document titled
Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States , which provides a framework for
environmental responsibility on existing and new golf courses.
Since the document was published, 23 organizations have endorsed
it, including golf associations, environmental groups, the federal
government (EPA), and others (see box). A copy of the
environmental principles can be found at
http://www.usgaorg/green/download/current_issues/print/
environmental-principles.html.
The following organizations endorse
the Environmental Principles for
Golf Courses document:
American Society of Golf Course Architects
Arizona Golf Association
Audubon International
Center for Resource Management
Club Managers Association of America
Friends of the Earth
Golf Course Builders Association of America
Golf Course Superintendents Association of
America
Ladies Professional Golf Association
National Association of Counties
National Club Association
National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
National Golf Course Owners Association
National Golf Foundation
National Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Coastal Federation
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Save the Bay
Shivas Irons Society
Southern Environmental Law Center
United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Golf Association
New and existing golf courses are expected to adopt and integrate
the principles on their own. 'The principles were intended to be
voluntary," notes Paul Parker, Executive Vice President of the
Center for Resource Management and member of Golf & the
Environment steering committee. 'To support this voluntary effort,
we are developing a self-assessment checklist to allow groups to
determine how well their golf course is adhering to the principles."
To provide an overall picture of how much the golf industry has
improved by adopting the principles, the Golf & the Environment
Initiative is developing a national golf course environmental
performance measurement program. "We hope to track industry
performance by looking at indicators of environmental performance
like water use and water quality," explains Parker. 'The Golf Course
Superintendents Association is supporting this effort by asking its
members to supply the data" Both the checklist and the performance
measurement programs are planned for release at the Golf Course
Superintendents Association annual meeting in February 2001.
[For more information contact, Paul Parker, Executive Vice President,
Center for Resource Management, 1104 East Ashton Avenue, Suite
210, Salt Lake City, UT 84106. Phone: (801) 466-3600.]
Notes on Education
Trivia Campaign Reaches Average Citizen
Drop by Drop: You Make a Difference, a trivia campaign that educates about water pollution
prevention, has been piloted in Illinois and Virginia by EPA Region 5 in partnership with Philip
Morris Companies, and in Chicago, with Dominick's grocery stores.
The Girl Scout Council of South Cooke County hosted two events at Dominick's stores in Oak
Lawn and Matteson, Illinois. The Girl Scouts set up tables at each store, using EnviroScape®
models to demonstrate water pollution prevention and offering shoppers the opportunity to
participate in a quick trivia quiz on water issues. Those who took the quiz received Drop by Drop
tor magnets.
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
25
-------
Trivia Campaign Participation was entirely voluntary, based on the principle that "Learning is much more fun when
Reaches A verage you choose to participate, when you can enjoy it, and when you know it's balanced and accurate
Citizen information," observes Judy Taggart of the Terrene Institute, which developed Drop by Drop.
Philip Morris introduced Drop by Drop: You Make a Difference to Virginia at a press conference in
Richmond. The conglomerate also announced the donation of 23 EnviroScapes to the Richmond
City Schools and the state of Virginia "Supporting such programs as the Drop by Drop campaign
helps to increase our awareness of water stewardship and the importance of protecting the natural
resources of our communities," said Charles E. Agee, Manager, Community Relations Programs of
Philip Morris USA
To develop Drop by Drop, Terrene and EPA Region 5 conducted focus groups to ascertain how to
reach the average citizen who doesn't actively seek information about the environment. Focus
group participants agreed that they wanted balanced, accurate information that wasn't trying to sel 1
them a point of view. They also preferred receiving information in an attractive form, such as the
trivia quiz developed by Drop by Drop.
Shoppers at the Chicago pilot events responded enthusiastically to the EnviroScape® demon-
stration and the trivia quiz. Although answers to the quizzes were to be posted in the stores later,
most shoppers wanted to know the answers immediately, and many discussed the information with
the Girl Scouts.
Terrene provided Drop by Drop: You Make a Difference kits containing all the information and
materials the Girl Scouts needed to prepare for the events. The Scouts organized and presented the
events. A Terrene representative, Erin Foster, assisted.
Although a national campaign, Drop by Drop: You Make a Difference will be conducted by
community groups as local events. "Our goal is to help communities reach people in everyday
places, such as grocery stores, malls, and markets," Taggart says of the campaign.
[For more information, contact Judy Taggart, Terrene Institute, 4 Herbert Street, Alexandria, VA.
Phone: (703)548-5473; e-mail: terrinst@aol.com; web: www.terrene.org.]
Students Learn from Waste water
D arrow School, a private residential high school in upstate New York, has turned its septic system
nightmare into a curriculum booster. Until 1998 the school's 100 students were served by several
aging and potentially leaking septic systems scattered around the campus. The school was built in
the late 1920s on the original Mount Lebanon Shaker Village site, and many of the septic systems
predated the school. To address this septic time bomb, the school administration decided to replace
the septic systems with an innovative wastewater treatment system called the Living Machine®. In
addition to solving a nonpoint source pollution problem, the new $248,000 system is now an
integral part of the learning process at Darrow School.
The school decided to build a Living Machine after much research. Not only were they impressed
with the success of the treatment process (see box), but they also recognized the potential for usi ng
the system as a teaching tool. "We've developed an environmental emphasis in our curriculum that
complements the system," explains Lisa Riker, Director of Environmental Studies at Darrow School.
Serving the Curriculum
The system began helping students to learn even before it was installed. To size the new system and
the corresponding state discharge permit for the system effluent, the school had to determine how
much water it used per day. A math class was charged with finding out. 'The students forced us all
to keep track of how long we were in the shower, how many times we flushed the toilet and so
forth. They measured the water flow with buckets in the showers and measured the water in the
toilet tanks. They kept track of how much water was used in the dining hall. We were all pleased
when the state determined that the students' research was acceptable for issuing the school's
discharge permit," says Riker.
26
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Students Learn
from Wastewater
(continued)
Wastewater from the school passes through aerated reactors
that are filled with tropical plants. The plants are also studied
during botany lessons.
A student from the Darrow
school samples the effluent
of the Living Machine.
Living Machine Treatment Process
Since the system's installation in October
1998, teachers have been finding more and
more ways to incorporate it onto their
curriculum. Science classes make an obvious
connection. In the microbiology unit in
biology class, the students can observe
various microbes from the system under the
microscope. The aerated reactors in the
greenhouse also provide tropical plants for
study year-round. 'This is a great botany
resource when it is cold and dreary outside
during our New York winters," notes Riker.
Students select a plant and study it in detail
under the microscope and in its environment.
One botany class is developing an in-depth
study guide that details all the plants in the greenhouse. The guides will be given to visitors dur ing
tours of the facility.
Students in stream ecology have also used the system. Although most of this classwork is out in the
field monitoring streams, students also monitor the system's water quality. This can be an eye-opener,
explains Riker. "Students were horrified to find that the effluent from the treatment system was
actually cleaner than the water in local streams."
Other less obvious school subjects draw from the system. The watercolor class finds the greenhouse
the perfect place to capture color and beauty during the middle of winter. The Living Machine has
led the school to look at the entire curriculum through the lens of
sustainability. As a result, economics classes discuss natural resource
economics and history classes look at historical events with a critical
eye toward land use. English classes focus on the idea of a sense of
place when analyzing literature and writing.
4.
5.
A collection system delivers wastewater to a
passive anaerobic reactor buried outside the
greenhouse. This provides the first stage of
wastewater treatment. The anaerobic reactor
provides the initial removal of solids and
organic material.
From there, wastewater is pumped into the
greenhouse and enters a closed, aerated
reactor. Gasses are vented through a carbon
filter to remove odors. The closed aerobic
reactor further reduces organics and solids.
Next, the wastewater flows through a series of
five open, aerated reactors. These reactors are
filled with a diverse community of organisms
including aquatic plants, zooplankton, and
snail. In this oxygenated environment, the
communities of macro and microorganisms
break down the waste.
Following the open aerobic reactors, the
wastewater enters a clarifier. Excess biosolids
settle to the bottom and are pumped from the
clarifier back to the anaerobic reactor for
further digestion and volume reduction.
From the clarifier, the wastewater flows into two
Ecological Fluidized Beds (EFBs) for final
polishing. The beds have granular media filters,
made of lava rock, surrounded by an outer ring
of plants and water. These reactors remove the
remaining organics and suspended solids.
The final clean effluent is dispersed into the
ground using a mound disposal system.
Maintenance and Costs
Unlike their old septic systems, D arrow School's new wastewater
system requires daily maintenance. Instead of being deterred from
installing the system, D arrow embraced this new responsibility as a
teaching tool. Lisa Riker and her students spend about an hour a day
on average keeping the system operational. Maintenance needs
include documenting monitoring data and just "checking to see that
everything looks and smells all right." Aside from some initial
microbial imbalances, which were quickly solved, the system has not
suffered from operational problems.
A cost comparison between the Living Machine and other wastewater
treatment systems is difficult. "Our systems are often compared in
price to ones that treat wastewater to a lesser degree, which is
obviously not a fair comparison," explains Erik Aim, Director of
Marketing for Living Machines, Inc. "Also, less tangible benefits such
as educational benefits, quality of life benefits, and co-production
benefits are almost always glossed over." D arrow School had the
foresight to recognize these benefits and is now reaping the
educational rewards.
[For more information about Darrow School's efforts, contact Lisa Riker,
Darrow School, 110 Darrow Road, New Lebanon, NY 12125. Phone: (518)
794-6011; e-mail:sec@darrowschool.org. For more information on the
Living Machine system, contact Eric Aim, Living Machines, Inc., 8018
NDCBU, 125 La Posta, Taos, NM 87571. Phone: (505) 758-5090; e-mail:
erik@goodwater.com.]
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
27
-------
Educational Resources Column
Video
New Video Examines Polluted Urban Runoff. Is the water that flows from my tap safe to
drink? Are the fish I buy or catch safe to eat? Can I swim in nearby rivers, lakes, or streams without
facing serious health hazards? Residents of towns and cities across America are asking these
questions with greater frequency as growing populations, sprawling development, and pollution
threaten the purity of our freshwater supplies. To help communities deal with these issues, the
Oregon State University Extension Service has produced a new video entitled After the Rain: Urban
Runoff. 'This program explores the importance of water, the pressures our towns and cities are
placing on this precious resource, and ways that individuals can protect local drinking water
supplies," says Ron Miner, OSU Extension Service water quality specialist. 'The video should
prove useful to anyone who is concerned about drinking water safety and improving the natural
world around us."
After the Rain: Urban Runoff (VTP 029) costs $19.95 (including shipping) per copy. Send your
request and check or money order payable to Oregon State University to: Publication Orders,
Extension & Experiment Station Communications, Oregon State University, 422 Kerr
Administration Building, Corvallis, OR 97331-2119. Information about the video and other
water-related educational materials is available on the Internet at http://eesc.orst.edu. For more
information, contact AnneGilliam, River Network, Eastern Office. Phone: 202-364-2550; e-mail:
agilliam@rivernetwork. org
Video Explains Riparian Functions. Whether it's along a coastal or a desert stream, the riparian
area plays a pivotal role in the health of our watersheds. Life on the Edge: Improving Riparian
Function, anew 12-minute video from the Oregon State University Extension Service, shows
viewers:
• H ow this transition zone between the water's edge and the uplands provides food and cover
for fish and wildlife, controls erosion, filters runoff, and produces the ingredients for fish
habitat and stream channel stability.
• What land-use practices can adversely affect riparian areas.
• The techniques landowners, volunteers, and professional resource managers use to improve
and protect riparian function.
Life on the Edge: Improving Riparian Function (VTP 033) costs $19.95 (including shipping) per
copy. Order by e-mailing puborders@Drst.edu or send your request and check or money order
payable to Oregon State University to Publication Orders, Extension & Station Communications,
Oregon State University, 422 Kerr Administration Building, Corvallis, OR 97331-2119.
For Our Future. Narrated by TV personality and native Kansan Bill Kurtis, For Our Future
beautifully summarizes Kansas' Governor's Forum on Water Quality Protection (see the
Commentary in News-Notes No. 59). The 11-minute video is free from the Kansas Water Office by
calling (785) 296-0866.
Models
Watershed Kit. Thenew Make Your Own Watershed Kit makes learning about watersheds fun —
even exciting — as you create your own plaster watershed (with buildings and bridges) using the
kit's molds and paints. Then, you can learn how to prevent water pollution through activities
suggested by the kit's instructions (in English and Spanish). "EnviroScape Jr." in size and cost, t he
kit takes the successful hands-on educational approach of its popular parent into the homes and
projects of students. The 12-inch-square watershed mold can be reused. EnviroScape's Make Your
Own Watershed Kit sells for $29.95, plus $5.50 shipping and handling; volume discounts are
available. Send your order with payment (check or credit card) to EnviroScape, c/o JT&A,
14524-F Lee Road, Chantilly, VA20151; fax (703)631-6558. For more information, call
(703) 631-8810, ext. 10; website: www.watershedkit.com.
28 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Reviews and Announcements
Comments Period Open on National Agricultural Management
Measures Guidance
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture is a draft
technical guidance and reference document for use by state, local, and tribal managers in the
implementation of nonpoint source pollution management programs. It contains information on
the best available, economically achievable means of reducing pollution of surface and ground
water from agriculture. EPA is soliciting comments on this draft guidance. Comments must be
postmarked by January 16, 2001 and mailed to Sharon Buck, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (4503-F), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; or electronically
mailed to buck.sharon(S£pagov. For more information visit the web site at
www. epa gov/owow/nps/agmm/index.html.
Call for Papers/Posters
9th National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop
August 27-30, 2001
Hyatt Regency, Indianapolis, IN
This workshop will bring together land managers and water quality specialists to share information
on the effectiveness of best management practices in improving water quality, effective monitoring
techniques, and statistical analysis of watershed data The workshop will focus on the successes of
Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects and other innovative projects from throughout
the United States.
The agenda will include three days of workshop sessions/presentations and a one-day field trip.
Two half-day workshops will focus on monitoring program evaluation and GIS. Presentations will
be 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for discussion. Poster presentations are also encouraged.
Presenters will submit a paper due the date of the conference for publication by U.S. EPA ORD.
The deadline for submission of abstracts is March 1, 2001. Presentations should focus on one of
the following session topics:
• Detecting change in water quality from agricultural BMP implementation
• Modeling application of NPS pollution
• Agricultural nonpoint source pollution TMDLs
• Volunteer monitoring in section 319 projects
• Innovative monitoring in agricultural landscape
• Programs and approaches for animal operations and nutrient management
[Abstracts are limited to one page, single spaced (or 300 words). Submit abstracts by e-mail to
ctic@ctic.purdue.edu or on disk by mail to Nonpoint Source Workshop, 1220 Potter Drive, Suite 170, West
Lafayette, IN 47906. Phone (765) 494-9555; fax (765) 494-5969. For more information, contact Tammy
Taylor at taylor@ctic.purdue.edu or visit www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/NPSCall.html.]
Web Sites Worth a Bookmark
www. wa. go v/ecology/wq/wo w/index.htm I
Watch Over Washington supports volunteer monitors of all ages in learning how to collect reliable,
consistent environmental information. It features a searchable roster of projects and coordinators;
announcements of events, resources, and opportunities; status reports on natural resources: and mor e
www. ci. knoxville. in. us/reports/bmp_manual/index. htm
The city of Knoxville, Tennessee's BMP Manual will assist developers, contractors, engineers,
inspectors, and property owners in the selection and installation of BMPs. The main text and 28 of
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 29
-------
Websites Worth
a Bookmark
(continued)
the BMPs, which represent approximately half of the BMP Manual, were posted in August 2000.
The remainder of the BMPs are still being edited and will be released in a few months. Each
section of the manual can be downloaded in Adobe Acrobat format.
www.lgean.org
The Local Government Environmental Network (LGEAN) is a "first-stop shop" that provides
environmental management, planning, and regulatory information for local government elected
and appointed officials, managers and staff
Datebook
DATEBOOK is prepared with the cooperation of our readers. If you would like a meeting or event placed
in the DATEBOOK, contact the NPS News-Notes editors. Notices should be in our hands at least two
months in advance to ensure timely publication.
Meetings and Events
January 2001
7-9
22-26
February 2001
5-9
March 2001
21-23
April 2001
17-20
18-20
30-May 2
May 2001
16-18
June 2001
10-15
27-July 1
August 2001
27-30
posium on Integrated Decision-Making for Watershed Management. Chevy Chase, MD. Contact Dr.
Mary Leigh Wolfe, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech. Phone: (540) 231-6092; e-mail:
mlwolfe@rt.edu; web site: www.conted.vt.edu/watershed.htm.
Working at a Watershed Level, Fresno, CA Contact the California State University, Fresno Geology Department.
Phone: (559) 278-3086; e-mail: watershed@istserve.csufresno.edu; web:
www.dpla.water.ca.gov/sjd/sjrmp/workdiop/indexhtml.
International Erosion Control Association's 32 Annual Conference and Expo, Las Vegas, NV. Contact EC A at (970)
879-3010; fax: (970) 879-8563; e-mail: ecinfo@eca.org, web site: www.ieca.org.
Iff Annual Southeastern Lakes Management Conference, Knoxville, TN. Contact Sue Robertson, Tennessee Valley
Authority, (423) 751-3747; e-mail: ssrobertson@va.gov, web: www.don-anderson.com/senalms2001.
Enhancing the State's Lake Management Programs—Integrating Nonfoint Source Watershed Management wit h Lake
Management and Protection, Chicago, IL. Contact Bob Kirschner, Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook
Road, Glencoe, IL 60022. Phone: (847) 835-6837; fax: (847) 835-1635; e-mail: bkirschn@hicagobotanic.org.
4th National Mitigation Banking Conference , Fort Lauderdale, FL. Contact Terrene Institute. Phone: (800)
726-4853; e-mail: terrinst@iol.com; web site: www.terrene.org.
Water Quality, Monitoring, & Modeling, San Antonio, TX Contact Michael J. Kowalski, American Water
Resources Association, 4 West Federal Street, P.O. Box 1626, Middleburg, VA 20118-1626. Phone: (540)
687-8390; fax: (540) 687-8395; e-mail: mike@iwra.org, web site: www.awra.org..
2001 Communities Working for Wetlands. Orlando, FL. Headed by The Izaak Walton League of America. For more
information contact Save Our Streams. Phone: (800) 965-5004; e-mail: awm@wla.org; web site:
www.iwlaorg/SO S/awm/ awmconf.html.
5th International Conference on Diffuse Pollution. Milwaukee, WI. Sponsored by the International Water
Association, Specialist Group on Diffuse Pollution. Contact Vladimir Novotny, Institute for Urban Environmental
Risk Management, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881. Phone: (414) 288-3524; fax: (414)
288-7521; e-mail: environment@narquette.edu; web: www.mu.edu/environment/iwa-page.htm.
National Watershed Forum, Arlington, VA Contact Todd Barker, Meridian Institute, (802) 899-2625; e-mail:
tbarker@nerid.org; web: www.merid.org
9th National Nonfoint Source Monitoring Workshop: Monitoring and Modeling Nonfoint Source Pollution in the
Agricultural Landscape , Indianapolis, IN. Contact the Tammy Taylor, Conservation Technology Information
Center, 1220 Potter Drive, Suite 170, West Lafayette, IN 47906. Phone: (765) 494-9555; fax (765) 494-5969;
e-mail: taylor@tic.purdue.edu.
30
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
DECEMBER 20OO, ISSUE #63
-------
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon
(Mail or Fax this coupon to us)
#63
Our Mailing Address:
Our Fax Numbers:
NPS News-Notes, c/o Terrene Institute, 4 H erbert Street,
Alexandria, VA 22305
NPS News-Notes (202) 260-1977and (703) 548-6299.
Use this Coupon to
(check one or more)
LJ Share your Clean Water Experiences
Ll Ask for Information
U Make a Suggestion
Write your story, ask your question, or make your suggestions here:
Attach additional pages if necessary.
Your Name:
Organization:
Address:
City/State:
Phone:
E-mail:
Date:
Zip:
Fax:
Web site:
DECEMBER 200O, ISSUE #63
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
31
-------
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES is an occasional bul letin deal ing with the con dition of the water-related en vi ron ment,
the con trol of non point sources of water pol lu tion and the eco system-driven man age ment and res to ration of water-
sheds. NPS pol lu tion co mes from many sources and is caused by rain fall or snowmelt mov ing over and through the
ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and car ries away natu ral pol lut ants and pol lut ants re suit ing from human activ-
ity, fi nallyde pos it ing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and ground water. NPS pollution is as so elated
with land man age ment practicesin volv in gag riculture,silviculture,min ing, and urban runoff. Hydrologic modification is
a form of NPS pol lu tion which of ten adversely affects the bio log icalinteg rity of surface waters.
Editorial contri butions from our readers sharing knowledge, expe ri en ces and/or opin ions are in vitedand welcomed.
(Use the COUPON on page 31.) However, NEWS-NOTES cannot assume any responsibility for publication a
nonpublication of unsolicited material nor for statements and opinions expressed by contributors. All material in
A/EWS-NOTES has been pre pared by the staff un lessoth erwiseattrib uted. For in qui ries on ed i to rial matters, call (202)
260-3665 or FAX (202) 260-1977.
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES is produced by the Terrene Institute under an EPA Cooperative Agreement (#
820957-01) from the Assess ment and Water shed Protection Division, Off ice of Wet lands, Ocean sand Water, U.S. En vi-
ron mental Protection Agency. It is distrib uted free of cost. Views expressed do not nee es sar ily re fleet those of EPA or
the Terrene Institute. Men tion of commercial products or publications does not const! tut e en dorse ment, or recommen-
dation for use, by EPA or the Terrene Institute.
NONPOINT SOURCE NONPROFIT ORG.
News-Notes u'sDP°fnAGE
/ T T 1^ L PAID
c/oTerrenelnstitute Merrifield, VA
4 Herbert Street Permit No. 1308
Alexandria/VA22305 I
------- |