March 2001
#64
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
New Tools for Communities are Needed if NPS
Regulation is to Succeed
by Chester L. Arnold, Co-Director, University of Connecticut NEMO Project and
Tom Schueler, Director, Center for Watershed Protection
Agencies and programs concerned with nonpoint source pollution have not, as a group, fully
embraced the ramifications of the suburbanizing of America. If we are to succeed in reducing the
impacts of poorly planned development on our water resources, providing educational assistance
and practical tools to the nation's communities must become a major focus of NPS programs.
In recent decades, natural resource management has been moving out of agency offices and
farmers' kitchens into town halls. With the dawn of the NPS era came a realization that our critical
environmental issues are diffuse and incremental, making them a poor fit for traditional "command
and control" regulatory solutions. However, the first wave of NPS programs had an advantage of
sorts, in that it focused largely on a well-defined land use (agriculture) controlled by an easily
identified group (farmers). Now, as American suburbanizes, the majority of our landscape is no
longer primarily controlled by individuals owning large swaths of farm or forest land. In urban and
suburban American, communities, rather than individuals, assume the role of the predominant
land-use decision maker.
How do we respond to the new challenges inherent in this evolution of our landscape and
understanding? Seeking new answers to the seemingly intractable problem of nonpoint source
control in urban and urbanizing areas, water resource agencies are turning to regulatory approaches
such as the NPDES Stormwater Phase II, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and Source
Water Assessment programs. Bringing NPS pollution under the regulatory umbrella, however, is at
The CWAP looo 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 olan.
Inside this Issue
Commentary
New Tools for Communities Needed if NPS Regulation is to Succeed ... 1
Notes on the National Scene
New BEACH Act Strives to Protect Human Healt 3
The National NEMO Network Launched 5
News from the States, Tribes, and Localities
Ohio Lake Erie Buffer Program Takes Off 6
Land and Water Fund of Rockies Offers Resource Conservation Model. . . 7
Innovative Seattle Project Controls Stormwater 9
Notes on Watershed Managements
BMPs Reduce Pollution from Kansas Golf Course 11
BMP Maintenance Guidance Helps Homeowners'Associations 13
Coast*A*Svst Reaches Out to Coastal Landowners 14
Agricultural Notes
Citrus Growers Take the Lead in Cleaning UD Water IS
Conservation Improves Water Oualitv and Ranching Profits 17
Notes on Education
Shoreland RestorationEmpowering Citizens to Help Themselves . ... 19
Virginia Youth Work to Restore Wetlands 20
Huron River Watershed Residents Bombarded with NPS Information. . . 21
Technical Notes
New Techniaue Helps Streams Restore Themselves 23
Safe Winter FMng Versus Clean Water 25
Reviews and Announcements
2001 National Urban Conference 27
Congress Passes Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000 28
New LID Publications Available 28
Ecologicallv Based Municipal Land Use Planning 28
Unified Federal Policv for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land
and Resource Management 28
Enhancing the States' Lake Management Programs Conference 29
Web Sites Worth a Bookmark
BMP Performace Database 29
USDA Online Photo Center 29
USDA's Agricultural Research Service Image Gallerv 29
Smart Growth Network 29
DATEBOOK 30
THE COUPON 31
All issues of News-Notes are accessible on EPA's website: www.eDa.aov/OWOW/info/NewsNotes/index.html.
-------
New Tools for
Communities are
Needed if NFS
Regulation is to
Succeed
(continued)
best a "back-door" approach to influencing land use, the root cause of the problem. These
programs, while not directly regulating land use, will have an impact on development decisions
but will it be the intended, positive impact?
Assuming that an increase in regulatory pressure will automatically result in huge improvements is
a leap of faith. It seems safe to predict that community leaders and developers under pressure will
embrace any strategy out there that will satisfy their state regulators. At the moment, what's "out
there" is still dominated by structural stormwater practices, which have several inherent limitations.
First, the literature tells us that the pollutant removal capability of such practices is modest,
particularly when compared to preventive approaches involving watershed planning and better site
design. Second, by addressing NFS pollution at only the site level, the impacts of poorly planned
development on community character, long-term economic health, and overall watershed health
concerns that have made "smart growth," "liveable communities," and "sprawl" common terms in
today's lexicon are not always adequately addressed.
A new focus is needed. We must put much more emphasis on providing communities with the
education and technical assistance that they need to improve their overall land-use planning, and
implement development design that is more protective of water resources. Comprehensive
planning, watershed planning, open space planning, farmland protection, natural resource
inventories, innovative subdivision design, green roofs, pervious parking, bioretention all of
these techniques and more must be made viable options to communities seeking to do a better job
of growing the right way.
The Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) Project and the Center for Watershed
Protection (CWP) are attempting to assist communities through education and development of
new tools. NEMO, with strengths in land-use planning, and CWP, with strengths in design and
stormwater management practices, share many topical emphases and methods, but perhaps the
most important thing they share is the commitment to directly working with community-level
decision makers.
NEMO offers communities direct assistance in the form of a dozen different educational programs
targeted for local land-use decision makers, delivered at the rate of about 150 presentations per
year. These programs all focus on some aspect of natural resource-based community planning, an
approach that considers conservation and development in tandem, and is consistent with Phase II
minimum management measures. Through the judicious use of remote sensing, geographic
information systems, and other technologies, NEMO programs allow local officials to step back
from their site-level focus, and put development proposals in the broader context of their town or
watershed. More technical planning, mapping, and design information delivered via publications,
the Web, and CD serve to create a multimedia support system for communities following the
NEMO approach.
CWP acts as a technical resource for local and state governments around the country, helping them
develop more effective urban stormwater and watershed protection programs. CWP provides this
support on many different levels, from publishing the journal Watershed Protection Techniques, to
running training workshops for planning and design professionals (more than 275 to date), to
conducting in-depth studies for individual municipalities and counties that result in stormwater
master plans, watershed plans, urban stream remediation, and better site design.
Both CWP and NEMO are now confronting the challenge of disseminating information and
methods beyond the ability of immediate staff to meet the escalating needs of America's
communities. The National NEMO Network, comprised of a diverse group of educational projects
currently encompassing 19 states, is an attempt to magnify both the geographic scope and topical
coverage of on-the-ground land-use education programs (see The National NEMO Network
Launched, page 5). NEMO is also engaged in research partnerships with NASA and NOAA,
aimed at making remotely sensed data truly useful and accessible by local officials. Using both
historic data sets and new high resolution data, changes in land cover information showing the
growth patterns of suburban development and the resultant increases in impervious cover in four
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
New Tools for
Communities are
Needed if NFS
Regulation is to
Succeed
(continued)
Northeast watersheds is being made available over the Web, so that local officials can visualize the
past and potential future impacts of their plans and regulations.
CWP is working on providing growing communities with new tools, such as their new Stormwater
Manager's Resource Center web site (stormwatercenter.net), which contains practical information
for communities facing Phase II and other regulatory requirements. The site has more than 2,000
pages, including 150 articles, a reference library, fact sheets, and information on a range of topics,
from diagnosing watershed problems to overall resource protection strategies.
NEMO and CWP have agreed to work together toward the long-term goal of providing quality
education and practical technical tools to the thousands of communities that will be affected by the
new wave of storm water regulation and beyond that, to the many smaller and larger
communities in need of assistance. A big job, and one that will require more effort, more resources,
more people and organizations willing to "get their hands dirty" at the local level.
Despite the very real gains of the past 20 years in understanding and controlling NPS pollution,
the NPS community as a whole needs to admit that we have yet to evolve beyond the old "end of
the pipe" mentality. It's well past time for that evolution to occur. Let' s roll up our sleeves and
make a real commitment to focus on land use, the "beginning of the pipe."
[For more information on NEMO, contact Chet Arnold, NEMO Project Co-Director, Coooerative Extension
SVstem, University of Connecticut, 1066 Say brook Road, Box 70, Haddam, CT 06438-0070. Phone: (860)
345-4511; fax: (860) 345-3357; e-mail: carnold@canr.uconn.edu; web site: htto://nemo.uconn.edu. For
more information on the Center for Watershed Protection, contact Tom Schueler, Center for Watershed
Protection, 8391 Main Street, Ellicott City, MD 21043-4605. Phone: (410) 461-8323; fax: (410) 461-8324;
e-mail: center@cwo.oro; web site: httD://www.cwo.oral.
Notes on the National Scene
New BEACH Act Strives to Protect Human Health
Every year, many family vacations center around America's bountiful coastal recreational resources.
Unfortunately, some families arrive at their favorite beach only to find that the water is unsafe for
swimming because of high levels of disease-causing microorganisms that enter the water through
Stormwater runoff and sewage treatment plant malfunctions. Other families swim at their favorite
beach, assuming the water is safe, without knowing whether that state actually has a program in
place to monitor for microorganism levels. The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health (BEACH) Act of 2000, signed into law on October 10, 2000, will address these issues by
expanding the federal, state, and local partnership for beach protection and ensuring that the
public is more aware of potential health risks in coastal waters.
Key Provisions of the Act
The BEACH Act requires that all coastal states and territories and the Great Lakes adopt EPA's
existing water quality criteria for bacteria. If a state does not adopt standards that are "as protective
of human health as EPA criteria," EPA is required to promptly propose revised standards.
EPA's Water Quality Criteria
for Bacteria
* Fresh waters: Geometric mean values of
33 enterococci bacteria oer 100 ml and
126 E, coli bacteria oer 100 ml
4 Marine waters: Geometric mean of 35
enterococci oer 100 ml
EPA based these values on specific levels
of risk of acute Gastrointestinal illness.
The new law also establishes a new grants program to assist state and local
governments. The law authorizes up to $30 million per year to help them
establish monitoring programs for coastal waters, and develop programs to
notify the public when coastal waters fail to meet standards.
To supplement state efforts, the Act requires EPA to conduct additional studies
on the health risks from pathogen exposure, the types of and detection
methods for pathogens and pathogen indicators, and how states should apply
EPA's pathogen and pathogen indicator criteria in diverse geographic and
aquatic conditions. Based on the results of this research, EPA must propose
new pathogen criteria within 5 years. To ensure the public has access to
information, the Act requires EPA to establish a national coastal recreation
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
New BEACH Act
Strives to Protect
Human Health
(continued)
water pollution occurrence database that contains beach data, including beach advisories, pollution
sources, and other information. The Act also requires EPA to develop performance criteria to assess
whether the Act is being implemented effectively and to provide a baseline for determining
whether states are eligible for grants. If a state fails to implement the Act's monitoring and
notification requirements, the Act directs EPA to establish and conduct a monitoring and
notification program for the state's waters.
What Initiated the Legislation?
Currently, water quality monitoring along coastlines varies greatly among states. Most coastal states
have developed their own water quality standards that they enforce through state programs, but the
standards themselves, how they are enforced, and the level of monitoring differ from one state to
another. The states that monitor do not always inform the public when the water exceeds
standards. Because legislators recognized the need to ensure protection of public health, they
developed and passed the BEACH Act to establish consistent national guidelines for standards,
monitoring, and public notification.
The BEACH Act provisions will be incorporated into EPA's broader BEACH program, which
strives to significantly reduce the risk of disease to users of the nation's recreational waters by
improving recreational water programs, communication, and science. The BEACH program works
with state, tribal, and local health and environmental officials to design, develop, and implement
beach monitoring and advisory programs. The BEACH program also conducts an annual national
survey (see box) to better inform the public about the status of beaches around the country. The
new BEACH Act authorizes funds that will allow states to expand their present efforts and
participate more fully in public notification. For more information on EPA's BEACH program see
www.epa.gov/ost/beaches. To view the final version of the BEACH bill, see http://thomas.loc.gov
and search on HR999.
[For more information, contact Rick Hoffmann, U.S. EPA (4305), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washinoton, DC, 20460. Phone: (202) 260-0642: e-mail: hoffman.rick@eDa.oov.l
EPA's BEACH Survey Sheds Light on Need for BEACH Act
in the sprina of 2000, EPA conducted the third
annual National Health Protection Survey of
Beaches. This voluntary survey of Government
aoencies solicited information on local beach
health activities and conditions durino the 1999
swimmino season. Participants (usually local
oovernmental aoencies from coastal counties,
cities, or towns) were asked the followino:
Which beaches are beino monitored? How often
are they monitored? Who conducts the
monitorino? Where and how often have
advisories or closinas been issued? What
methods are used to determine beach
advisories and closinos? How often are water
Quality standards exceeded at the beaches?
For the 1999 swimmina season, oraanizations in
32 states and territories representing all coastal
and Great Lakes states reported data on 1,891
beaches. EPA's survey showed that 459
beaches (24 percent of the reported beaches)
were affected by at least one advisory or
closino. Survey respondents issued advisories
and closinas for various reasons, includino
when monitorina revealed a violation of
pathooen indicators (such as enterococci
levels) in the water, after events like sewaoe
spills and heavy rain, and durino water
conditions such as red tides, aloae blooms, and |
the presence of seaweed and zebra mussels.
Survey results showed that 89 percent of the
beaches had some type of water duality
monitorino prooram, but the monitorino
proorams were inconsistent. Althouoh some
states and local Governments monitored water
Quality at their beaches usino
EPA-recommended indicators (enterococci for
saltwater and ฃ co//for fresh water), many
continued to use older measures such as total
coliforms or fecal conforms. Currently, of the
1,692 beaches with reported monitorina
proarams (679 freshwater and 1,013 saltwater),
only 379 freshwater beaches use E. coliand
261 estuarine and saltwater beaches use
enterococci for issuino beach advisories or
closinas.
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
The National NEMO Network Launched
The National NEMO Network, a confederation of projects adapted from the University of
Connecticut's Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) program, converged on
Haddam, Connecticut in October 2000 to hold the first ever network-wide conference. NEMO is
an award-winning project that uses remote sensing and geographic information system (GIS)
technologies to educate local land-use decision makers on the links between land use and water
resource protection.
More than 40 participants representing 20 states came to the conference, dubbed "NEMO
University," to discuss how to collaborate, share methodologies and research, and develop new
educational strategies. Representatives of the NEMO Network also heard updates from each state,
as well as the latest from the Connecticut program. "NEMO U is the first time we have all sat
down together as a group to mull over successes and challenges, and map out what we wish to
accomplish in the future," commented John Rozum, National NEMO Network Coordinator.
"The National NEMO Network is attempting to create a truly interactive network of shared
experiences among diverse state projects."
Interest in adapting the NEMO model has continued to grow since NEMO Project Directors Chet
Arnold and Jim Gibbons made their first out-of-state NEMO presentation in 1995. Currently, 19
states have active NEMO programs and more are organizing and looking for funding. "In 1991
when NEMO started in Connecticut, we didn't foresee a diverse network of projects that included
40 percent of the states," remarked Arnold, a water quality educator. Network projects focus on
issues ranging from impervious surface reduction to quality of life and community character to
habitat protection in the face of suburbanization. All projects are educational efforts targeted at
local land-use decision makers, and use technologies such as GIS and remote sensing to convey
their message. Key among these technologies is the build-out scenario used by many projects to
show decision makers the cumulative effect of development on natural resources. Build-out
scenarios compare existing development conditions to the community's projected future
development as set forth in local land-use regulations.
NEMO U was underwritten by a grant from NOAA's National Sea Grant College Program. USDA
and EPA also support the national network, and many individual state projects are funded by
Clean Water Act section 319. An Interagency Work Group (IWG), formed from representatives of
EPA, USDA, NOAA, NASA, USGS, and client organizations such as the American Planning
Association and the National Association of County Officials, serves as an advisory committee for
the network's national efforts. In 1999 the IWG approved a charter pledging to work together to
promote and support the National NEMO Network. This support has come in the form of new
funding opportunities for network projects, promotion of NEMO at national conferences, and
wider support within the agencies.
"Over the past several years, many agencies and organizations have reached the conclusion that the
key to protecting natural resources relies on better local land-use decisions," says Jim Gibbons, a
land-use educator. "NEMO's focus on local land-use decision makers represents a nonregulatory
way to address the diverse range of issues now encompassed in catch phrases like 'smart growth' and
'liveable communities.'" Rozum observed that a primary focus of NEMO U participants was
promoting low-impact development and natural resource-based planning. Participants also agreed
to continue strengthening the network by sharing information and materials, and staying in close
contact with other members. "In many ways the conference really was the birthplace of the
national network. We know this is a unique and ambitious idea, but we are encouraged by the
enthusiasm we see across the country to shake up the status quo and start to develop differently,"
said Rozum.
(For more information, contact John Rozum, National NEMO Network Coordinator, Coooerative Extension
SVstem, University of Connecticut, 1066 Say brook Road, Haddam, CT 06438. Phone: (860) 345-4511;
fax: (860) 345-3357; e-mail: Jrozum@canr.uconn.edu. You can also visit the NEMO website at
htto://nemo.uconn.edu.l
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Motes from the States, Tribes, and Localities
Ohio Lake Erie Buffer Program Takes Off
A new program in Ohio will buffer Lake Erie and its watershed from the impacts of agricultural
nonpoint source runoff. In 1998 the Ohio Lake Erie Commission released The Lake Erie Quality
Index, which identified soil erosion and sediment transport as the leading cause of water quality
impairment in the Lake Erie watershed. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) convened a meeting of several public and private
agricultural and natural resource agencies to discuss ways to improve water quality in Ohio's Lake
Erie watershed, more than 75 percent of which is in cultivated cropland. The group decided that
the installation of buffers, an effective method of reducing sediment loss from the land, was the
best option for reducing water quality impairments.
From these discussions, the Lake Erie Buffer Program was born in
1999. A group of 19 organizations lead the program. Collectively
known as the Ohio Lake Erie Buffer Team, they include the
NRCS, the Ohio Lake Erie Commission, Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, the Ohio Wetlands Foundation, Pheasants
Forever, and others. The Buffer Team's goal is to establish 50,000
acres of new conservation buffers on agricultural cropland using
available Conservation Reserve Programs (CRPs) by the end of
2005. The Lake Erie Buffer Program complements the Clean
Water Action Plan's (CWAP) multi-agency National Conservation
Buffer Initiative, which aims to install 2 million miles (or up to 7
million acres) of conservation buffers across the nation by the year
2002. Buffers implemented through the Lake Erie Buffer Program
will count toward this national goal.
Grass filter strips and riparian buffers protect water quality in
Ohio's Lake Erie watershed.
Types of Practices
The Buffer Program focuses on installing several different types of buffers, including grassed
waterways, filter strips, riparian forest buffers, windbreak buffers, and wetlands. The Buffer Team
originally anticipated the installation of 90 percent grassed waterways and filter strips and only 10
percent of the types that require more labor and time to implement. However, "almost 20 percent of
the practices we've installed have been the more permanent type like tree planting and wetland
development, even though these require a longer contract agreement with the landowner," explained
Steve Davis, Ohio Buffer Team Coordinator. "We've been extremely pleased with the response."
Since the program was formally launched in Summer 1999, the Lake Erie Buffer Program has made
significant progress toward its 50,000-acre goal. The number of acres installed to date is not yet
known because the organizations responsible for developing contracts and tracking conservation
reserve sign-ups operate on different time periods. However, "just over the past seven months we have
allocated $4 million all the CRP Enhancement money we had for two years," noted Davis.
Funding the Program
The administration and outreach of the Buffer Program are funded primarily by a three-year,
$229,635 Lake Erie Protection Fund Grant from the state of Ohio. Buffer Team organizations
match these funds with $62,476 in cash and in-kind services. Buffer installation is funded
primarily by state and federal cost-share funds. The largest source of funding comes from the $201
million Ohio Lake Erie Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (LECREP), a program
jointly developed and funded by the state of Ohio ($33.5 million) and the USDA ($167.5
million). Over the next 10 years, participating landowners will receive payments from this fund
based on the type and size of buffers they implement. Because LECREP is a stand-alone program,
it has its own long-term goal of installing 67,000 acres of conservation practices over a 10-year
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Ohio Lake Erie period. Any buffers enrolled through the Buffer Program using LECREP will count toward the
Buffer Program LECREP goal, the Buffer Team goal, and the CWAP national buffer goals. In addition to using
Takes Off LECREP for buffer installation, the Buffer Team also relies on other government programs that
(continued) provide technical and financial assistance, including the Northwest Windbreak Program, the
Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program, and USDA's regular continuous CRP.
Getting the Word Out
The Buffer Team has completed many activities that work toward their goals (see Ohio Lake Erie
Buffer Program Strategic Plan 2000-2004 at www.glc.org/basin/OHbuffer/buffer_plan.html) to
promote the program and teach people about the potential environmental and economic benefits
of buffers:
Published a buffer education brochure for landowners
Printed and distributed 1,300 signs to counties to display at highly visible buffer sites
along roads in the watershed
Launched a recognition program for participating landowners
Participated in a statewide conservation award program
Filmed a television segment on buffers for Agricountry, a well-known regional program
with more than half a million viewers
Developed a slide presentation for meetings
Printed brochures to advertise the Lake Erie Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
Developed three traveling buffer displays
"Interest in the program has been widespread in all 30 counties in the watershed. Of course, we've
had the most response in counties where the local county agency representatives have been more
aggressive in promoting the Buffer Program and soliciting sign-ups. But we've had a solid response
from all counties," noted Davis. "At the rate we are going we'll definitely meet the LECREP's
10-year goal...whether we get there by 2005 depends on whether the state legislature accelerates
additional funding to meet the increased demand. If not, we will be limited by how many acres can
be funded each year."
(For more information, contact Steve Davis, Ohio Buffer Team Coordinator, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 39000 Camnus Drive, Lima, OH 45804. Phone: (419) 222-0614; e-mail:
steve.davis@oh.usda.oov.]
Land and Water Fund of the Rockies Offers a
Model of Resource Conservation
A Colorado-based environmental organization is turning heads with a new landscape design
around its building. But many passersby don't see the rest of the story that the innovative
landscape doubles as an effective stormwater control system for the Land and Water Fund of the
Rockies' (LAW Fund) building and parking lot in the city of Boulder. The LAW Fund is a
nonprofit environmental organization that uses economics, law, and policy analysis to protect and
restore the Rocky Mountains and Desert Southwest. In 1992 the LAW Fund began an effort to
become a model of efficiency and comprehensive sustainable landscaping in a business setting by
creating the Environmental Center of the Rockies.
Leslie Kaas, Communications/Outreach Director for the LAW Fund, explains the reasons behind
the effort. "When Kelley Green started the organization in 1989, she had a vision of a central
meeting place for environmental activists that was a model of sustainability and efficiency. Today,
the Environmental Center of the Rockies is an office building that offers an opportunity for
collaboration among conservationists in our region. It is a model for the community and other
businesses because we are 'walking the walk' of environmental conservation and sustainability."
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 7
-------
Land and Water
Fund of the Rockies
Offers a Model of
Resource
Conservation
(continued)
Following this vision, the organization purchased a half-acre site along a busy street for their
headquarters. First they reduced nonrenewable energy use by 85 percent by retrofitting the
building with energy saving measures like reflective windows and solar panels. In the spring of
1999, at a cost of about $113,000, the LAW Fund installed a water-efficient landscape system that
uses swales and gardens to funnel and capture runoff from the building roof and parking lot.
Following are some of the highlights of their efforts:
The parking lot was reduced in size, reconfigured with recycled asphalt,
and sloped so that some water is directed to the plants and trees in the
gardens in the parking lot and the front of the building. Sand and grass
filters placed at the edge of the landscaped gardens capture the large
solids in the runoff stream. The remainder of the water on the parking
lot collects in one corner and flows through a series of swales, gardens,
and ponds that wrap around two sides of the building. Soil in the
bottom of the swales filters out finer pollutants. The ponds are formed
by low-level check dams in the swales and are surrounded by drainage
fabric, sandy loam backfill, gravel mulch, waterproof membranes,
aggregate mulch, and gravel wrapped in geotextile.
Precipitation from the rooftop is directed through a series of eight
scuppers, or drainage holes, located around the building's roof. Although
site constraints require two of the scuppers to empty into an alley behind
the building, the remainder are directed into the swale system.
Grasses, shrubs, and flowering plants are used liberally in the landscape
to give the site a natural look. Drip irrigation was installed to help the
plants become established. In the future, the irrigation lines may be
removed because the plants should be able to survive on rainfall and
runoff alone.
Runoff flows under sidewalk into gardens around
the building.
Results
After the landscape project was completed, a year of
monitoring data showed 70 to 80 percent of the
water applied to the property infiltrated to ground
water, 19 percent was evapotranspired by plants, and
an estimated 1 to 10 percent was incorporated into
plant biomass. The landscape system does allow
overflow in cases of heavy rain, which occurred once
during the monitoring year, accounting for a 1
percent loss of water off the property. Students from
the University of Colorado at Boulder are
continuing to monitor the site. (For more
information about the water budget study, visit
www.lawfund.org/ecr/ecrstudy.htm.)
The swale and garden system requires relatively little
maintenance, said Kaas. "Right now we are
providing supplemental irrigation during the driest
months of the year. A landscape company also
comes in to make sure the weeds don't take over the
newly landscaped beds. If our staff sees trash
collected in the grassy areas, they make an effort to
dispose of it. The system itself was developed to be
self-sustaining."
Roof drainage pours into a garden next to the
building.
8
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Land and Water
Fund of the Rockies
Offers a Model of
Resource
Conservation
(continued)
Resource Sharing
Another aspect of the founder's original vision for the Center was for it to serve as a hub for
regional environmental efforts. The LAW Fund works to support collaboration and the sharing of
resources by providing office space to environmental organizations at or below market value. Some
of the Center's other occupants include the National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, American
Lands Alliance, Western Mining Action Project, the Center for Native Ecosystems, and the
Wilderness Education Institute.
Honored as a pilot demonstration project by the National Forum on Nonpoint Source Pollution,
the stormwater portion of the project illustrates how a conventional business or residential
landscape can be attractive while capturing and treating stormwater. The project was featured in
Landscape Architecture magazine (May 1998, pp.58-63), and was recognized by the National
Geographic Society. The city of Boulder's cable television station continues to air a 15-minute
video on the project entitled "Environmental Center of the Rockies: An Urban Stormwater
Control Project."
The city of Boulder, a partner in the landscaping project, has written several articles about the
project, leads tours for interested individuals, and gives presentations at conferences. "We want
people to know that this is a feasible project. One of the selling points is that it was an existing site,
and we had to work with constraints that you might find at any site. These are the types of projects
that we need to replicate to ultimately make a difference in water quality," explained Paul Lander,
with the city of Boulder's Office of Water Conservation. Pictures of the project and a project
summary are available on the Internet at www.lawfund.org/ecr/ecrl.htm.
fFor more information, contact Leslie Kaas, Communications/Outreach Director, LAW Fund, 2260
Baseline Road, Suite 200, Boulder, CO 80302. Phone: (303) 444-1188 ext. 216; e-mail:
leslie@lawfund.oro; web site: www.lawfund.oro. For more information on the sVstem schematics, contact
Paul Lander, CitV of Boulder, Office of Water Conservation, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306.
Phone: (303) 413-7407; e-mail: landero@ci.boulder.co.us. Cooies of the video are available from Channel
8, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306. Phone: (303) 441-4298.1
Innovative Seattle Project Controls Storm Water
You might think keeping your dog out of the neighbor's yard is a chore, but have you ever tried to
keep your storm water out of your neighbor's yard? Well, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) is taking that
idea a step further with a project to keep storm water onsite, not shunt it offsite to affect someone
downstream. Instead of building a traditional curb, gutter, and sidewalk system in Seattle's Broadview
neighborhood, SPU began an innovative street and drainage design that uses a swale system to reduce
impervious surfaces, increase vegetation, and detain and filter water during precipitation events.
The drainage project, which is located in the 1,835-acre Pipers Creek watershed that flows into
Puget Sound, is part of SPU's Urban Creeks Legacy Program. The program supports a series of
creek restoration and drainage improvement projects that seek to enhance water quality, reduce
flooding and nonpoint source pollution, improve habitat for salmon and other wildlife, and
encourage citizen involvement through education and outreach.
Outdated Street Design Under Attack
Streets and drainage have not been improved in many of the Seattle neighborhoods that were
annexed 40 to 50 years ago. "We have found that the streets without drainage improvements are
the ones that have the greatest impacts on water quality and quantity. If there are curbs and gutters,
at least the water can be contained and managed," explained SPU's John Arnesen, the project
manager. "We are working with the community to build sidewalks and improve the drainage in
many of these neighborhoods and to better protect creek and stream ecosystems. We needed to
find a cost-effective way to balance both needs."
SPU decided that a system of swales and gardens along the length of a street was the ideal solution.
"We wanted to move back to more of a natural system, with localized detention and infiltration,"
noted Arnesen. "The swales back up the water during storms, essentially slowing it down and
allowing it to filter through the vegetation." The water can then evaporate, evapotranspire,
infiltrate, or slowly release to the creek.
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
innovative Seattle
Project Controls
Storm Water
(continued)
(Above) Broadview neighborhood before construction (wide streets and no drainage system).
(Below) Broadview neighborhood after construction (curving street bounded by drainage
swales and gardens).
SPU, working with other city
departments, assessed many
neighborhoods in Seattle to identify
good candidates for reconstruction.
Once they developed a list of 30
potential blocks, they invited all the
residents to a public meeting to discuss
the proposed changes. They sent the
residents home with petitions to sign up
their neighbors. To qualify for further
consideration, the neighbor- hood had
to have signatures from at least 60
percent of the residents on the block.
Of the 30 blocks identified, six achieved the signature
requirement. Seattle's Broadview neighborhood was
chosen after residents submitted a petition signed by 18
of the 19 properties (94 percent). The Broadview block
includes 19 homes on lots less than a quarter-acre in size.
Broadview's original street configuration included a straight
20-foot-wide street with a 20-foot shoulder right-of-way on
either side where people parked their cars. The
neighborhood had no side- walks and no drainage control
except for ditches at the end of the block. Runoff traveled
over the pavement until it found the ditches at the end of
the street.
Project Components
SPU completely replaced the street and redesigned the 60-foot right-of-way. City design staff from
SPU and the transportation department developed the site plan, based on discussions with the
landowners. Following the approved design, SPU built a new 14-foot-wide meandering street to
replace the 20-foot-wide straight street. They placed a sidewalk along one side of the street and
parking areas on alternating sides. Overall, the project reduced impervious surface area on the
block by 7 percent.
In the remaining right-of-way, SPU built a system of 12 interconnected water-retaining swales that
can hold a 24-hour, two-year storm event. To increase evapotranspiration and minimize runoff,
SPU planted trees and other native plants along the road and in the right-of-way. "Not only does
this project help improve water quality and reduce the potential for flooding, it also gives these
homeowners a much nicer looking front area. Prior to this project, there wasn't a single tree in the
60-foot right-of-way. Now there will be at least 80 trees," remarked Arnesen.
Prior to construction, SPU gathered baseline monitoring data of the overland flow off the street. Now
that the project is complete, SPU will begin monitoring the project's results by measuring the
quantity of storm water that reaches the flow control structure located at the end of the swale system.
The project was funded completely by SPU, using money from drainage fees paid by the citizens of
Seattle. The cost of developing this innovative street and drainage system was $800,000, compared
to between $600,000 and $800,000 for a traditional curb, gutter, and sidewalk system. "The
specific cost of a project like this will vary because each is designed for the needs of the specific
location," noted Arnesen. "However, as we become more familiar with the requirements for this
type of project, we anticipate that it might actually be less expensive to implement than a
traditional drainage system."
[For more information, contact John Arnesen, Seattle Public Utilities, 710 2nd Avenue, Room 640 Seattle,
WA 98104. Phone: (206) 684-8921; e-mail: John.arnesen@ci.seattle.wa.us; web site:
www.citVofseattle.net/util/urbancreeks/Dioers.htm.1
10
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Motes on Watershed Management
BMPs Reduce Pollution from Kansas Golf Course
Best management practices have done their job on a Kansas golf course, according to a study
released by Wichita State University (WSU). In 1997, WSU researchers monitored water quality in
areas affected by urban, suburban, and agricultural runoff in the Wichita area. Based on the results,
the researchers selected one site, a golf course, for BMPs. Researchers hoped to measure the degree
to which golf course BMPs could reduce pollution from nonpoint sources. This three-year project
was funded through a $260,000 section 319 grant from the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDEH).
Site Selection
During the first year of the project, researchers collected and analyzed monthly low flow and 8 to
10 high flow water samples at each of a series of sites, including public parks, urban lawns and
streets, a row crop agricultural site, and two golf courses. Of these sites, the researchers identified
the Braeburn golf course as the best candidate for BMPs The researchers selected Braeburn for
several reasons, including: (1) Water samples from ponds at Braeburn showed elevated levels of
fertilizer and pesticides; (2) The golf course was associated with WSU, so the superintendent was
willing to cooperate on the project; and (3) The golf course was located at the highest point in the
watershed so all the water flowing into the ponds originated on golf course land (allowing water
quality changes to be directly attributed to changes on the golf course).
The initial year of water quality monitoring in two of Braeburn's four golf course ponds had
revealed high levels of fertilizer and pesticides. Mean nitrate and total phosphorus levels in Ponds A
and C (see figure) were 1.63 mg/L and 1.23 mg/L, respectively, well above KDEH's nutrient
enrichment criteria limits of 1.2 mg/L nitrate and 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus. The elevated
nutrient levels were blamed for severe algal blooms and resulting fish kills. Pond data also revealed
several spikes of 2,4-D and simazine above the chronic exposure limits of 3 ppb and 10 ppb,
respectively, after spring and early summer application periods. An initial biological assessment of
the ponds showed a very low number of species, likely because of the influx of pesticides and the
application of copper sulfate directly to the ponds to control algae blooms.
Braeburn golf course site plan.
'-..r ' ป'Ir (>+. I-I
Choosing BMPs
In 1998, WSU researchers worked with the golf course superintendent to
develop and implement a BMP plan at the golf course. Not all of the BMPs
were readily accepted. "At first, the superintendent was reluctant to reduce
the amount of fertilizer applied. However, once we did soil tests to show him
that he already had enough nutrients in the soil, he agreed," explained M.J.
Lydy, WSU project director. The BMPs were implemented in stages to assess
whether one type was more effective than the other. BMPs included:
Management (implemented during summer 1998, at the start of the
project's second year):
Modified the chemical application schedule. Fertilizer was applied more
frequently but at reduced amounts, which ultimately reduced the overall
application amount.
Discontinued the use of copper sulfate, which is highly toxic to aquatic
macroinvertebrates.
Structural and Vegetative (implemented during summer 1999, at the start
of the project's third year):
Placed chemical-free (no application allowed) buffer zones of
20-meter-wide unmanicured grass around the pond perimeters.
Relocated golf course greens' drainage tile discharge from Pond A into a
bog area where it could be better filtered by soil and vegetation.
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
11
-------
BMPs Reduce
r- ซ /->
(jOn (Bourse
/ .. ,,
Established aquatic plants in wetlands, the bog, and the inlet and outlet of ponds.
Dredged Pond A, which was shallow (1 to 2 feet) and eutrophic, to increase the depth to 3
r r . 111 i ^111-
to 6 reet so the pond could support aquatic vegetation and grass carp. Created a wetland in
a 40-meter-long drainage ditch leading from Pond X. to Pond A.
Pond water samples taken during the second year after the management BMPs were implemented
showed dramatic reductions in nutrient levels, even during application periods in the spring and
early summer and during rainfall events. The annual mean nitrate and total phosphorus levels
declined to about 0.77 mg/L and 0.54 mg/L, respectively, down from a high of 1.63 mg/L and
1.23 mg/L, respectively. Structural BMPs installed at the beginning of the third year of monitoring
resulted in further nutrient declines. At the close of the third year, researchers found that the
annual mean nitrate and total phosphorus levels had declined to 0.19 mg/L and 0.39 mg/L,
respectively. Nitrate levels were well below KDEH's nutrient enrichment criteria of 1.2 mg/L.
Although phosphorus never fell below the criteria of 0.1 mg/L, it did decline. "Phosphorus takes a
lot longer to move out of a system. These ponds have been receiving phosphorus inputs for over
100 years so it may take a while for the phosphorus levels to decline further," explained graduate
student Nate Davis, a key member of the research staff.
Pesticide contamination also declined after installation of structural BMPs. No 2,4-D was detected
in the water samples after July 1999, indicating that levels were at least below the detection limit of
2 ppb. Like 2,4-D, simazine declined initially after July 1999. In December 1999, however,
simazine levels of more than 150 ppb were found in the pond. Researchers attributed the spike to a
series of factors, including:
The golf course staff had applied 50 pounds of simazine to four fairways in mid- to
late-November, two weeks prior to a seasonally uncharacteristic 5.5-inch rainfall;
Dormant vegetation is less effective at absorbing contaminants;
The microbial degradation rates of pesticides decreases during colder weather; and
The buffer zone around the contaminated pond had been severely damaged during a
BMP-related dredging activity prior to fall application.
By March 2000 simazine levels had fallen below 10 //g/L (water quality criteria), but minute levels
persisted through June 2000. After the December 1999 simazine spike, researchers encouraged the
golf course superintendent to consider only spot treatments in the fall instead of a broadcast
application.
Data indicated that BMP implementation also helped the ponds' macroinvertebrate populations
rebound. By the summer of 2000, researchers observed an increase in the number of existing
macroinvertebrate families as well the appearance of several less pollution-tolerant species, including
butterflies, damselflies, and dragonflies, which were previously absent because of poor water quality.
The project has been a learning experience for WSU staff and students and the local community.
Over the three-year project, many students worked on the project and helped promote it. "The
students and I have offered several workshops and have given 30 to 35 presentations at regional
and national meetings, "noted Lydy. "On a local level, we developed an educational pamphlet for
the Braeburn golfers that explains the purpose of the project." The team also maintains a web
site where interested individuals can find out more project information
(www.twsu.edu/-biolwww/319_NPS_ Project/Background_of_ Braeburn_Project.htm).
The Future
The researchers hope to continue working on the site after the end of the grant period. However,
"construction is occurring on the course, and BMPs will be affected to some extent. In the meantime,
the superintendent will maintain the BMPs as best as possible," explained Lydy. "We hope to monitor
the site during the construction project and in the future to see if it affected the water quality."
[For more information contact Dr. M.J. LVdV, Associate Professor, Wichita State University, Biolooical
Sciences, 1845 N. Fairmount, Wichita, KS 67260-0026. Phone:(316)978-3111.]
12
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
BMP Maintenance Guidance Helps Homeowners Associations
What good is a best management practice if it fails? The Northern Virginia Regional Commission
(NVRC) decided to meet that issue head-on in its new guidance manual, Maintaining Your BMP:
A Guidebook for Private Owners and Operators in Northern Virginia. The NVRC hopes that by
offering guidance on stormwater BMP maintenance, associated costs, and availability of technical
resources, it can curb the rate of failing, ineffective BMPs.
The NVRC is a regional planning agency that represents 13 Northern Virginia local governments
just west of Washington, DC, including Loudoun, Fairfax, Prince William, and Arlington
counties. All four counties are already or are rapidly becoming largely suburban and are covered
with subdivisions and shopping malls. Under local ordinances, developments meeting certain size
and density criteria are required to implement stormwater BMPs to slow and in some cases treat
runoff from precipitation events. However, BMPs fail prematurely if not properly maintained.
"About 10 percent of our publicly maintained detention pond embankments have failed due to
piping at an average age of failure between 8 and 9 years," estimates Steve Aitcheson of Fairfax
County's Maintenance and Stormwater Management Division. "Although failure rate data are
somewhat limited for privately owned facilities, the current trends indicate that failure rates exceed
those of publicly maintained facilities. Reduced levels of maintenance by some private owners and
the higher percentage of privately owned wet ponds appear to contribute to these trends." Wet
detention ponds should last 20 to 50 years.
NVRC's 21-page guide, developed under a state grant, offers information to help individual
property owners, homeowners association representatives, and residential/commercial property
managers ensure their BMPs continue to function properly. The guide introduces the types of
stormwater BMPs typically used in the region dry ponds, wet ponds, infiltration trenches, sand
filtration systems, rain gardens, and grassed swales. It also explains who is most likely responsible
for BMP maintenance, such as a community or business that is subject to a BMP maintenance
agreement.
"Often, when a development is put in, the developer signs a BMP maintenance agreement on
behalf of the not-yet-formed homeowners' association. As a result, many homeowners' associations
don't realize that they are responsible for BMP maintenance," explains David
Bulova, NVRC's Director of Environmental Services. "We are working with local
governments to distribute the guidebook to homeowners associations to help
educate them."
BMP Maintenance Needs
Routine Maintenance
Reaular inspections
Veoetation Manaoement
S Mowino
s Pest and weed control
s Sediment removal (coverino turf)
s Unwanted veaetation removal
/ Maintainino no-mow zones
Embankment and Outlet Stabilization
Debris and Litter Control
Mechanical Components
Maintenance
Insect Control
Access Maintenance
Pond Maintenance (as applicable)
Nonroutine Maintenance
Sediment/Pollutant Removal
BMP Component Replacement
The guide outlines the maintenance usually required to keep a BMP functioning
properly. At the end of the guide, a supplemental "quick guide" details the routine
and nonroutine maintenance likely to be required for each of the region's typical
BMPs (see box).
After explaining the types of maintenance needed, the guide outlines who should
conduct each maintenance activity. For example, although the responsible party can
perform certain landscaping duties (e.g., community education, litter and debris
removal, and some other routine maintenance), a qualified inspector should be brought
in regularly to ensure early detection of problems. (The frequency varies according to
BMP maintenance agreement requirements.) To supplement the regular professional
inspection schedule, the responsible party should conduct self-inspections to look for
problems such as unexpected ponding, obstructions of inlets or outlets, excessive
erosion or sedimentation, sinkholes, and general condition of the area and the BMP
components. The guide includes a sample self-inspection checklist.
Finally, the guide explains how to plan for BMP maintenance costs. As a general
rule of thumb, annual routine maintenance costs $100 per acre for minimal
maintenance (mowing), while more comprehensive routine maintenance (mowing,
weed control, fertilization, debris control, and other activities) can cost up to $500
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
13
-------
BMP Maintenance
Guidance Helps
Homeowners'
Associations
(continued)
per acre. Nonroutine maintenance costs are much higher. The primary nonroutine costs are for
sediment/pollutant removal and BMP renovation or reconstruction, and they vary with the type of
BMP and with the amount of runoff received annually. Consequently, the guide recommends that
the responsible party establish a BMP maintenance fund that includes annual contributions to pay
for these inevitable costs. (See table for estimated frequency of sediment removal and BMP
replacement.) A dry pond, for example, needs to have sediment removed every 2 to 10 years at a
cost ranging from $3,600 to $15,000 for a 0.25-acre pond and from $166,000 to $550,000 for a
10-acre pond. To be prepared, the responsible party should collect 10 to 50 percent of the
expected costs annually. The responsible party should also establish a separate fund to pay for BMP
replacement. The average dry pond has a life expectancy of 20 to 50 years, so the responsible party
should set aside 2 to 5 percent of the estimated replacement cost annually.
Although the guidance manual was developed specifically for the Northern Virginia region, the
information is applicable to any area where stormwater BMP maintenance is the responsibility of
property owners, homeowners associations, and property managers. A limited number of guides are
available from NVRC for $3, including shipping and handling. The manual is also available for
download on the NVRC web site (www.novaregion.org) on the Environmental Services page.
[For more information, contact David Bulova, Director of Environmental Services, 7535 Little River
Turnoike, Suite 100, Annandale, VA 22003. Phone: (703) 642-0700; fax: (703) 642-5077; e-mail:
dbulova@novareaion.ora. 1
Reccurrence of Nonroutine BMP Maintenance Costs
BMP
Wet Pond
Dry Pond
Infiltration Trench
Rain Garden
Grassed Swale
Sand Filter
SEDIMENT REMOVAL
FREQUENCY
5 to 15 Years
2 to 10 Vears
As needed
5 or more Years
As needed
EverV 6 months or as reauired
FACILITY LIFE SPAN
20 to 50 Vears
20 to 50 Vears
10 Vears
Indefinite
Indefinite
20 to 50 Vears
Coast*A *Syst Reaches Out to Coastal Landowners
South Carolina has created a new coastal protection program called the Coastal Home Assessment
System, or Coast*A*Syst, to help coastal landowners protect water quality. Adapted from
Home*A*Syst and Farm*A*Syst, Clemson Extension Service and South Carolina Sea Grant
Extension under a section 319 grant, Coast-A-Syst teaches coastal watershed residents and
waterbody users responsible practices for protecting water quality, with the ultimate goal being to
reduce fecal and nutrient nonpoint source runoff from urban and suburban activities and land
development. Although participation is voluntary, the program encourages individuals to take
responsibility for and to correct water quality impairments caused by their own activities.
To drive the program, the extension agencies published a 122-page document entitled South
Carolina Coast*A*Syst: An Environmental Risk-Assessment Guide for Protecting Coastal Water Quality.
The document explains how to protect water quality around the home; manage stormwater; keep
well water clean; care for a septic system; handle hazardous household products; garden and
landscape in an environmentally friendly manner; and care for boats and docks. Each chapter
includes information about how coastal hazards, such as flooding and hurricanes, can affect the
issue detailed in that chapter. The document also includes checklists that allow people to perform a
confidential environmental self-assessment to see whether their activities might affect water quality.
Clemson Extension has implemented the program in five of South Carolina's eight coastal counties
and is expanding the program to serve the remaining three counties. They have recently conducted
two successful Coast*A*Syst training programs for master gardeners and coastal extension agents,
14
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Coast*A *Syst
Reaches Out to
Coastal Landowners
(continued)
preparing them to administer the program in their geographic areas. In January Clemson Extension
began offering a series of educational Coast*A*Syst workshops for the general public. Once the 319
grant ends, the ongoing administration and expansion of the program will be supported by the
Clemson Extension Service and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control.
(To order a free cooV of the document, visit the South Carolina Sea Grant Extension's web site at
www.scseaorant.oro (click on Dublications). An interactive Coast*a*SVst web site based on the document
is also available on-line at www.clemson.edu/sccoastasVst. For more information, contact Cal SawVer,
Coastal Environmental Quality Soecialist, South Carolina Sea Grant Extension Prooram, 259 Meetino
Street, Charleston, SC 29401. Phone: (843) 722-5940; e-mail: calvins@clemson.edu.]
Agricultural Notes
Citrus Growers Take the Lead in Cleaning up Water
The fertilization, pest control, and irrigation required in Florida's citrus groves, like in any other
agricultural sector, have negative impacts on water quality if not managed properly. The Indian
River Citrus League is hoping to reduce potential effects in their area by educating growers about
nonpoint source pollution and available best management practices. With a new manual, Water
Quality/Quantity BMPsfor Indian River Area Citrus Groves, the Citrus League describes a series of
BMPs and their environmental and economic benefits.
In a June 1998 letter to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS),
the South Florida Water Management District expressed concerns about the quality, quantity, and
timing of water draining into the St. Lucie Estuary (SLE) and ultimately into the Indian River
Lagoon on Florida's east coast. Realizing that citrus groves, which comprise 120,000 of the
288,000 acres in the SLE watershed, contribute significantly to the problems, the FDACS decided
to work with the Citrus League and the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences Department to develop appropriate BMPs. "Our objective," explained Doug Bournique
of the Citrus League, "is to develop practices that can be adopted and implemented by citrus
producers to reduce the adverse effects of their operations on the lagoon and the St. Lucie Estuary."
Using this newly developed BMP information, along with existing BMPs, the Citrus League led
the initiative to develop a citrus grove BMP manual to distribute to growers.
The Citrus League worked closely with many organizations to develop the 150-page manual,
including the FDACS, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the South
Florida and St. Johns River water management districts, and others. These partners secured section
319 funding from FDEP to support the manual's development. Published in May 2000, the
manual gives citrus growers detailed descriptions of BMPs and their potential economic and
environmental benefits. The authors designed the manual to allow updates as researchers identify
and develop new, science-based BMPs.
The authors organized the manual into the categories of water quality/quantity impact that they
deemed to most threaten the health of the estuary and lagoon water volume, sediment
transport, pesticides, nutrients, and aquatic weeds. The table on page 16 lists examples of the types
of BMPs detailed for each category of concern.
Many of the BMPs listed in the manual are already being used to varying degrees in the watershed.
For example, about 85 percent of the citrus groves in the Indian River area have been retrofitted or
designed with microirrigation (drip irrigation) systems, rather than the traditional flood irrigation.
The reduced soil saturation has enhanced overall citrus production and the reduced water use has
provided conservation benefits for other agricultural and nonagricultural water users in the region.
In addition, all of the Indian River area groves planted in the last decade have been developed with
on-site retention that limits sediment transport off-site and reduces the rate and volume of surface
water discharged.
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
15
-------
Citrus Growers
Take the Lead in
Cleaning up Water
(continued)
CATEGORY OF
CONCERN
Water volume
Sediment transport
Pesticides
Nutrients
Aquatic weeds
OBJECTIVE OF BMP
IMPLEMENTATION
Minimize off-site discharoes
after rainfall
Minimize transport of sediment
off-site
Minimize transport of
pesticides and metals off-site
Minimize transport of nutrients
off-site
Minimize the proliferation of
aauatic plants in waterways
EXAMPLE CITRUS GROVE
BMP DESCRIPTIONS
Usino drip irrioation
Monitorino water table position
Drainaoe controls/on-site retention
Measurino soil moisture
Usino riser-board water control structures
Usino settlino basins/sediment traps
Usino cautions for ditch construction and
maintenance
Stabilizino soils
Reducino spraV drift and over-spraV
Calibratino and maintainino eouipment
Usino inteorated pest manaoement
Accountino for mixino and loadino risks
Usino nutrient manaoement
Performino tissue and soil analysis
Accountino for storaoe and loadino risks
Protectino wells
Usino barriers
Removino aauatic weeds mechanically
Usino biolooical controls
ApplVino herbicides with caution
Some of the listed BMPs will be undergoing continued research to determine their effectiveness for
multiple parameters. For example, researchers are trying to determine whether water furrow
sediment traps, in addition to reducing sediment transport, can reduce levels of phosphorus and
copper in runoff water. This type of information will help the Citrus League and its partners better
assess the expected impact of the recommended practices on water quality.
BMP Implementation
The BMPs outlined in the manual are voluntary. However, the Citrus League requests that all
growers maintain records and provide documentation regarding BMP use. By proving that a
successful voluntary effort is underway, the Citrus League hopes to keep the program
nonregulatory and incentive-based. "This manual provides citrus growers with a comprehensive set
of BMPs to employ in reducing the amount of freshwater, sediments, pesticides, and nutrients
discharging from their operations to the lagoon system," explained Troy Rice, Director of the
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. "I hope that the growers apply these BMPs to help
protect the resources of the Indian River Lagoon and its tributary, the St. Lucie Estuary, while
simultaneously reducing their costs to produce the world-famous Indian River oranges and
grapefruit."
[The manual is available on-line at www.fcDrac.ifas.ufl.edu/BMP/default.htm. Hard cooies are free from
the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, ATTN: Velma Soencer, 2199 South Rock Road, Fort
Pierce, FL 34945-3138; Phone: (561) 468-3922. For more information, contact TroV Rice, Director, Indian
River Laooon National EstuarV Prooram, 525 Community Colleoe ParkwaV SE, Palm BaV, FL 32909.
Phone: (321) 984-4940; fax: (321) 984-4937; e-mail: TroV Rice@district.sirwmd.state.fl.us.]
16
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Conservation Improves Water Quality and Ranching Profits
Jim Crosswhite believes a healthy environment is the key to economic prosperity in ranching
and he is working to prove it. In 1996, he purchased a 300-acre ranch in Arizona's White
Mountains. Known as the EC Bar Ranch, the land had been plowed, planted, and grazed since it
was settled in the 1880s. However, beginning about 1970, farming declined for many reasons
including increasing numbers of elk that competed for forage, low livestock prices, a reduction in
public grazing allotments, and declining pasture quality caused by overgrazing and encroachment
of the invasive rabbitbrush plant. Many ranchers in the area no longer found ranching profitable
and sold their land. Jim Crosswhite saw an opportunity to reverse this trend by implementing more
economical and environmentally friendly ranching techniques.
Soon after he purchased the ranch in 1996, Crosswhite sought a professional evaluation of the
riparian corridor along the 1.5-mile segment of Nutrioso Creek running through his land. Using
the Bureau of Land Management's Functional Rating System, a consultant concluded that the
riparian zone was "nonfunctional" in places and "functional-at-risk in a downward trend" in others.
The streambanks appeared unstable and severely impacted from long-time overuse by livestock
grazing. Erosion accelerated with each new storm. The stream supported little aquatic vegetation,
ground water recharge was minimal, and water quality was poor. There was work to be done!
The Steps to Recovery
Crosswhite turned to Brian Sorenson, a conservationist for the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) in Springerville, Arizona, to prepare a conservation plan for the ranch. "The
conservation plan serves as a road map to follow while we pursue funding and implement
practices," explained Crosswhite. The plan includes several measures to manage livestock,
including
fencing to keep the livestock out of the riparian corridor,
alternative watering systems to remove the need for cattle to drink at the creek,
cross-fencing pastures to allow livestock rotation, and
better livestock management through rotational and dormant season grazing.
Other plan components include
replacing earth irrigation ditches with pipe to improve irrigation efficiency and reduce the
amount of creek water removed,
installing stream grade stabilization structures to slow water flows,
controlling and eradicating rabbitbrush, and
overseeding pastures with cool-season grasses to improve forage and reduce erosion.
Crosswhite took advantage of several funding programs to help with implementing the plan.
Through the Arizona State Land Department's Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP), Crosswhite
received almost 75 percent, or $6,750, of the total cost to place a five-wire fence around
approximately 60 acres of the riparian corridor. The fence was designed both to manage livestock
and to control wildlife. The bottom wire was smooth (no barbs) and non-electrified to allow
antelope and small animals to pass under it without harm. The top wire was electrified to control
livestock and discourage elk from jumping the fence. Because elk act similarly to livestock, they can
damage stream banks, prevent newly planted grasses from taking root, and defeat other
conservation practices.
"A fully
functioning
riparian zone
is a unique
treasure that
inspires
anyone who
sees it," notes
Crosswhite.
When first installed, the riparian fencing incorporated several temporary water gaps to allow
livestock and wildlife easy access to drinking water. With a $19,800 grant he received in December
1998 from the Arizona Water Protection Fund (AWPF), Crosswhite installed alternative watering
systems (wells and cattle waterers) that give both livestock and wildlife a reliable water source and
allowed closure of the water gaps in the riparian fencing. As part of the matching funds required
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
17
-------
Conservation
Improves Water
Quality and
Ranching Profits
(continued)
for the grant, Crosswhite contributed $5,000 for the electric power and piping. The following
year, the AWPF provided another $30,000 to extend the number of alternative watering systems
along elk migration routes on Crosswhite's property to reduce the elks' impact on the creek's
riparian corridor. As part of the AWPF project, a range consultant will study the elk, inventory the
wildlife and vegetation, and assess the success of the livestock management plan over time.
Crosswhite also implemented other strategies. He received 75 percent
matching funds through NRCS' Environmental Quality Improvement
Program (EQIP) to install about 3,000 feet of cross-fencing on his
pastures and seven stream grade stabilization structures along Nutrioso
Creek. He also tackled the rabbitbrush problem by combining mowing,
plowing, and overseeding with grass seed in his pastures. The
establishment of new grass was hampered by foraging elk herds, so
Crosswhite and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) entered
into a cooperative agreement to make the losses more manageable. AGFD
supplied $7,300 worth of seed and fertilizer, and Crosswhite agreed to
apply it annually for three years.
Crosswhite uses large tires for alternative watering
troughs.
Has the Work Paid Off?
By 1999 several improvements had been noted on Crosswhite's Nutrioso Creek segment. A
wetter-than-normal growing season in 1999 resulted in above average creek water levels that raised
the water table and deposited sediment at the stream grade stabilization structures, creating large
pools. In response to the improving health of the stream and riparian corridor, vegetation and
wildlife diversity began to rebound. A second Riparian Functional Evaluation, performed in July
2000, indicated that the segment's rating had improved to "functional-at risk with an upward
trend." Over the next few years, as the riparian corridor continues to improve, the rating is
expected to improve to the highest rating of "proper functioning condition." During monitoring
required for the development of the Nutrioso Creek total maximum daily load (TMDL) for
turbidity, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) found that turbidity was
lower in Crosswhite's fenced-off portions of the riparian zone than in other parts of the creek. In
fact, ADEQ was so impressed by Crosswhite's results that the final TMDL (Nutrioso Creek TMDL
for Turbidity, July 2000) recommended that all of the practices currently in place on the EC Bar
Ranch be expanded along the seven miles of creek where water quality is impaired.
No One Can Stop Him!
In 2000, Crosswhite decided to purchase an additional mile of the creek, bringing 2.5-miles of
Nutrioso Creek under his control and his conservation plan. In August 2000, he was awarded
section 319 funding through the ADEQ Water Quality Grant Improvement Program to
implement all the practices recommended in the TMDL report. The ADEQ reimbursed up to 60
percent of his expenses. Crosswhite estimates that by 2003, ADEQ will have contributed about
$150,000 or 50 percent of the total cost of all practices implemented. "The ADEQ and I are
working together in hopes that within a few years Nutrioso Creek will meet and maintain the
water quality standards for turbidity, and be removed from the state's list of impaired waters."
Hope for the Future
Pleased by this positive beginning, Crosswhite is convinced that conservation practices can help
increase ranching profits. In fact, he is planning even more improvements in the future. Before the
next irrigation season in 2001, he plans to convert the open-ditch irrigation system to a pressurized
sprinkler system that targets water on crops to better improve forage. Sprinklers will also be used to
grow grass on exposed streambanks to restore the riparian zone and improve water quality. "We
lose approximately 100 million gallons, or 307 acre-feet, of water from evaporation and seepage in
open earth ditches during the 150-day irrigation season. Using the value of water rights in New
Mexico as a guide, the value of this lost water is $307,000. But when you consider the loss of crop
production due to lack of available water, the actual cost is significant, although hard to put into
annual losses," he said. The goal will be to remove less water and to improve water quality and
riparian habitat.
18
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Conservation Crosswhite enthusiastically shares his ideas with others. He is active in local watershed
Improves Water organizations and works closely with public agency staff. Even though he has contributed a lot of
Duality ana time and considerable personal funds toward the projects, he notes that the projects could never
, ,, have been implemented without public funding and technical support, especially from the ADEQ
and EPA. He plans to share some of his experiences by offering workshops beginning next year.
Interested persons can join monthly group tours of his ranch.
[Details of the orolects, orant aoolications, ohotos, and orooress reoorts are available on-line at
www.ECBarRanch.com. For more information contact Jim Crosswhite bV e-mail atJim@ecbarranch.com.
For more information on the Nutrioso Creek TMDL, contact Shad Bowman, ADEQ, 500 North Third Street,
Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: (602) 207-7664; e-mail: shadb@earthlink.net.]
Notes on Education
Shore/and Restoration Empowering Citizens to
Help Themselves and Others
Do you have too many shoreland erosion problems and not enough trained people to help fix
them? The University of Minnesota Extension Service (UMES) has developed a series of shoreland
workshops across the state to train local individuals, including master gardeners, soil and water
conservation district and other natural resource professionals, and local government staff to design,
plan, and implement local shoreland restoration projects.
In 2000 the UMES worked with local partners at seven different locations to develop two
workshops. Although designed as a series, the workshops can also be taken individually. "We target
people who aren't just interested in restoring their own land but who are willing to help others
carry out shoreland revegetation projects and promote shoreland restoration in general," explained
Mary Blickenderfer, Extension Shoreland Specialist with UMES. The first workshop, which
focuses on shoreland design, explores using native plant materials and other biotechniques to
establish a buffer area that will minimize erosion, reduce nutrient and sediment runoff, create fish
and wildlife habitat, and provide a visual screen for privacy and aesthetic concerns. The workshop
was designed to help individuals evaluate and identify goals for their site, select appropriate plant
material, address erosion through bioengineering techniques, select appropriate site preparation
methods, and learn how to develop and implement a master site design.
The second workshop focuses on shoreland revegetation techniques and offers a hands-on
opportunity to prepare a site, identify the shoreland planting zones, plant suitable plant materials
for each zone, and install temporary wave breaks and biomaterials to control erosion. Participants
also learn how to acquire necessary permits for projects and how to maintain and monitor projects
once they are in place.
Applying What They've Learned
Workshop coordinators request that each participant spend at least 10 hours per year applying their
new skills to help local landowners with shoreland projects. As a result of the overwhelming
popularity of the workshops (160 people attended one or both workshops during 2000), the number
of locally led projects is on the rise. "Whereas I used to be the point person for shoreland restoration
projects in my 17-county region," notes Blickenderfer, "we have begun to refer shoreland landowners
to the trained workshop participants. These people have been very effective in assisting with buffer
design, plant selection, and project maintenance on sites having minor erosion problems that can be
remedied with plants and bioengineering. I continue to work with the county and state natural
resource agencies on ways to integrate native plants and bioengineering with 'hard armor' techniques
(e.g., rock riprap) on the more severe shoreland erosion sites."
Based on the success of the previous workshops, in 2001 UMES will conduct two design and
planning workshops that will be followed by a third hands-on planting project. Each workshop will
build on the previous. The second workshop series will be given at several new locations around
the state.
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 19
-------
Shore/and
Restoration
Empowering
Citizens to Help
Themselves and
Others
(continued)
Planning the Workshops
The workshops are conducted on a local basis with technical and funding assistance from local
entities such as the County Extension, County Ecological Services, Soil and Water Conservation
Districts, master gardeners, Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, watershed districts, and lake associations. "By conducting the workshops at the local level,
coordinated by local people, we ensure each workshop is tailored to local needs and resources,"
explained Blickenderfer.
Nominal workshop fees paid by participants, in addition to money contributed by local
organizations (from grants and other sources) and in-kind labor and materials, offset workshop
costs. "The workshops operate on a fairly low budget. The total cost for all 14 workshops
conducted in 2000 was $27,000, most of which covered plant and material purchases for the
hands-on planting workshops," added Blickenderfer. "The cost of shoreland restoration projects
ranges from $1 to $2 per square foot for plant and mulch materials to more than double that
amount if heavy machinery is required to recontour the shoreline before planting." The budget also
included the cost of the instructors. To plan ahead for workshops, many communities write an
educational component into grant applications. Adjacent counties that are interested in hosting a
workshop are coordinating their efforts and coming up with their own creative funding ideas.
Evolving to Meet the Needs of the Landowners
Workshop participants aren't the only ones who have learned from the workshops, admitted
Blickenderfer. "After working with so many landowners who have concerns about the 'weedy'
appearance of the native vegetation in shoreland buffers, we've learned to make some compromises.
Where we used to encourage 'native only' buffers, we now offer an alternative that the
landowner plant a visual screen of showy, noninvasive cultivars in high-visibility upland areas and
use the native plant buffer along the shore as a backdrop. By broadening our vision, we are opening
up restoration options to more people."
[For more information contact MarV Blickenderfer, Extension Educator, Shoreland Veaetation and
Landscaoe, University of Minnesota Extension, 1861 E. HwV 169, Grand Raoids, MN 55744. Phone: (218)
327-4616.1
Virginia Youth Work to Restore Wetlands
With the help of area kids, the Alexandria Seaport Foundation is addressing historical and
anticipated wetland losses in one tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. Grants from several public and
private sources totaling $110,000 have enabled the Seaport Foundation to restore 30 acres of
wetlands, and plans are underway to restore an additional 110 acres along Cameron Run/Hunting
Creek, Four Mile Run, and eventually on the lower Potomac River shoreline in Maryland. The
Seaport Foundation relies on mutually beneficial partnerships with Boy and Girl Scout troops,
schools, and at-risk urban youth programs for much of the labor. These diverse groups of youths
learn about nature and responsibility while they help the Seaport Foundation realize its goals.
"We need to prove we're making a difference in the Potomac," remarked MariLou Livingood of the
Seaport Foundation. She noted that the project began partly in response to impending
construction of a replacement for Washington, DC's aging Woodrow Wilson bridge, which spans
the Potomac River near the Alexandria waterfront. "About 70 acres of wetlands are going to be
destroyed by the bridge. Although officials are required to replace the wetlands, we are not taking
any chances," she explained. "We're not going to wait around."
Arlington County Department of Environmental Services' Jeff Harn lauded the group's efforts, noting
that the loss of wetlands is an unfortunate side effect of development. "There's a lot of development
pressure." Harn said, "In Arlington, the unfortunate situation is that we don't have many wetlands
left. There was a lot of filling of wetland areas around Crystal City, National Airport, and Four Mile
Run. We're very happy to see the Seaport Foundation project getting underway."
Getting Down and Dirty
Wetland work began in the summer of 1999 and, with adequate funding, will continue
indefinitely. The Seaport Foundation staff, community volunteers, and youths fulfilling
20
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Virginia Youth Work
to Restore Wetlands
(continued)
Helping Each Other . . .
The Seaoort Foundation has worked
with a community service oroaram,
known as the YES Prooram, for
manV years. A number of youths
who end UD in the court system are
assioned to helo the Foundation
each week for a few hours to fulfill
their community service reauire-
ments. As many as 80 percent of
individuals Darticioatino in this
Qrooram have done on to colleae,
served in the military, or found Jobs
relative to their skills. Durino the
winter, the youth work with the
Foundation to build boats. (For
more information about the Seaoort
Foundation's boat-buildino effort,
see NPS News-Notes Issue
#48, Aoril/MaV 1997.) Durino the
oast two summers, the youth
worked on wetland restoration
projects.
court-directed community service spent many days in wetlands cleaning trash, removing invasive
plants, and collecting native plant seeds. After the first summer in the wetlands, "participants were
getting tired of attacking invasive vines, so we decided to expand the project to include planting,"
explained Livingood.
The Seaport Foundation and Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment, a nonprofit organization
dedicated to educating the citizens of Arlington, Virginia, about their local environment, joined forces
in July 2000 to develop a wetland plant nursery at the National Park Service Nursery on Daingerfield
Island. The goal of the nursery is to support propagation of native wetland plants, such as the
common three square and pickerel weed, and riparian buffer plants, such as black willow and white
pine. The nursery will also provide plant materials for future local wetland and streambank
restoration projects. "Beginning next growing season we hope to establish a
self-sustaining source of wetland plants. The beauty of wetland plants is that they
absorb nutrients and provide habitat for animals and insects," noted Livingood. "They
also trap sediment, which is the number one source of pollution in the Potomac River.
The nonnative vines, such as porcelainberry, honeysuckle, and bittersweet, are causing
problems by wrapping themselves around the trees on the stream banks. These invasive
plants will now be replaced by native plants," she said.
The Foundation is also cooperating with a local high school to grow wetland plants in
the school's greenhouse. "A number of high schools built greenhouses in the 1970s
that have since fallen into disuse. We see this as a great opportunity to cooperate with
high school ecology clubs to use these facilities and educate students about the
benefits of wetlands," explained Livingood. A second high school might be joining
the program this spring. Once the students raise the plants beyond the tender stage,
the plants will be moved into the Daingerfield Island outdoor nursery ponds to
become better established and accustomed to the outdoors. The students will then be
able to transplant the plants they raised to a natural wetland.
To monitor the success of the restoration project, the Seaport Foundation and its
volunteers plan to test the water quality in local streams and rivers and assess habitat
and wildlife diversity before and after restoring a particular area. The many facets of
this project will offer youths from all walks of life the opportunity to be a part of
something environmentally significant for years to come.
[For more information, contact MariLou Livinoood, Alexandria Seaoort Foundation, c/o Nannie J. Lee
Recreation Center, 1108 Jefferson Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Phone:(703) 549-7078; fax: (703)
594-6715; e-mail: asfoffice@aol.com; web site: www.caoaccess.oro/asf.!
Huron River Watershed Residents Bombarded with NPS Information
For the past three years, the Huron River Watershed Council has been conducting a massive media
campaign to blanket the Huron River watershed's residents with information on nonpoint source
pollution prevention. In addition to the 125-mile-long Huron River, the 900-square-mile
watershed has 370 miles of creeks and tributaries, 300 lakes, and seven counties with a total of
500,000 residents. The Huron River's greatest challenge is phosphorous-laden runoff. The Council
felt it was high time to show the public that they are the key to watershed health.
The project teaches homeowners proper lawn care practices, household toxicants disposal, septic
system maintenance, water conservation, and storm drain awareness. In a recent study using GIS
data and analysis, Andrew Brenner, a former Middle Huron Initiative Coordinator, found that an
estimated 75 percent of the NPS pollutants in the Huron River Watershed result from improper
disposal of toxic materials, poor septic system maintenance, using too much water, putting
pollutants into storm sewers, and especially, overfertilization of lawns.
A variety of partners work with Council on this information/education campaign and are key to its
success. Nine municipalities, utility providers, the Southeastern Oakland County Resource
Recovery Authority, Michigan State University extension agents, Home Toxicants Drop-Off
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
21
-------
Huron River
Watershed
Residents
Bombarded with
NFS Information
(continued)
facilities in Washtenaw County, and related agencies helped print and disseminate environmental
tip cards.
The tip cards list things homeowners can do to prevent NFS pollution around their homes and in
their neighborhoods. Six tip cards were designed:
Put household hazardous waste where it belongs
Save time and money: Simple lawn care practices
Saving water saves you money
The Huron River begins in your neighborhood
Keep your septic system safe
Save time and money: Fertilize your yard right
Each card is packed with information like phone numbers to call to find out where to dispose of
toxic waste. They also include bright orange stickers to mark containers of fertilizers. One card
explains how to dispose of latex paint: "Normal trash pick-up: Open the can and dry it out with
cat litter. Keep it separated from your other trash." Suggestions for nontoxic cleaning supplies were
also given, including using denture tablets as toilet bowl cleaner.
The lawn care tip card advises mowing grass at three inches. A small plastic ruler is included to
measure height of grass. Longer blades promote stronger root growth. The card also suggests using
a test plot to see if watering is really necessary. If it is, the lawn should be given one inch of water
once a week. An empty tuna can placed on the lawn signals an inch when it is full. Leaving
clippings on the lawn is also advised as the best way to return nitrogen to the soil.
The tip card on saving water includes stickers to place on bathroom mirrors to remind people to
turn off the water and tells them how to inspect the toilet for a leak: Place a few drops of food
coloring in the tank a leak is indicated if the color appears in the bowl in a few minutes.
New Rules for
Old Septic Systems
Washtenaw County, Michioan, a rural
low-density area of the Huron River
watershed populated by many elderly
residents, is Gradually beino swallowed
UD by surroundino cities. The area
contains some abandoned septic
systems and others so old that they
have broken tanks or tiles that cause
sewaae to back UD into the yard or even I
into the house. To alleviate these
problems, local reoulations reauire that,
when an area is annexed, the homes
must be connected to the sewer system
within six months, if one exists. The
county also reauires that each septic
system be inspected and found to be in
oood workino order when a home is
sold. The county has hired, trained, and
certified 43 inspectors to conduct the
inspections. Homeowners are beina
offered cost-share money from a section |
319 orant to repair their systems or
convert to alternative systems.
[For more information, contact Steve
Manville of the Washtenaw County
Environmental Health Deoartment,
e-mail:manvills@co. washtenaw.mi. us. /
Storm drains are explained as being built to prevent flooding of the streets and
neighborhoods after heavy rainstorms by quickly diverting rainwater to the river
system. But in dry weather they also carry water from activities like car washing
and lawn watering. "Whatever enters the storm drains ends up in the water we
call our playground: the local creeks, lakes, and the Huron River." Several
suggestions are given to avoid spills, overwatering, and dumping.
A chart for keeping a record of septic system maintenance is printed on the back
of the septic system tip card. It also gives several suggestions for taking care of
the system. The last tip card is also about lawn care.
So far more than 210,000 tip cards have been mailed to 70,000 households. An
independent survey of people who received tip cards revealed that 43 percent
recalled the mailing, 38 percent read the cards, and 31 percent kept them for
future use. Soil test submissions increased 500 percent in the first year. Home
substances drop-offs at Washtenaw County receiving stations increased by 75
percent the first year, with increases as high as 250 percent following tip card
mailings. Surveys on drop-off days supported by print advertising revealed that
75 percent of participants came because of the ads seen in the newspaper.
In addition to tip card mailing, announcements were made via radio and
newspaper. The following catchy ads were placed in 14 newspapers
watershed-wide:
A septic system ad pictured an athlete flexing his biceps, and the caption read
"pump it out."
A lawn care ad showed two cute kids lying in a pile of leaves with the
caption "Rake it... or leave it!" The message was to mulch the leaves or
make a compost pile.
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Huron River
Watershed
Residents
Bombarded with
NFS Information
(continued)
A zany character with an exaggerated mohawk hairdo and a lawnmower is shown in
another ad saying, "Got grass? Mow high!"
A child looking at a plant erupting from the sidewalk is captioned, "How does your sidewalk
grow?" The message is not to water the sidewalk , but to keep it clean by sweeping.
A baby sitting in the grass with a fistful of grass has the caption, "Got grass? Feed it right!"
The message being that your lawn gets hungry and grass clippings are the ideal food
source.
"Take the Super Bowl challenge. . . will your toilet pass the test?" shows bottles of colored
water on the tank of a toilet. The message is that a silent toilet leak can waste as much as
200 gallons of water per day.
Another ad shows two people visiting over a fence. The caption says, "Don't just ask your
neighbor. Bring us your dirt. Don't guess. . .Soil test." It then gives instructions on taking a
soil sample, and lists places to have it tested.
A hazardous waste ad says, "Reduce your wasteline," and shows the torso of a very
muscular man.
In addition to radio public service announcements, newspaper ads, and mailings, the Council
produced a general brochure and a colorful map poster of the watershed to raise watershed
awareness and to increase membership in the Council. A display was also created for use at events,
and an Enviroscapeฎ 3-D interactive nonpoint source pollution prevention model was purchased
for use by the Council and other agencies.
Michigan Groundwater Stewardship and 10 retailers coordinated a spring soil testing promotion.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's stormwater staff also attended
information/education trainings, coordinated additional workshops, and worked with the
campaign organizers to coordinate statewide messages. In addition, 10 municipal offices distribute
the map posters.
Local matching funds in combination with a 319 Clean Water Action grant administered through
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality funded the campaign. The project budget
totaled $298,000 in the first three years, with an additional $210,000 accrued in local matching
funds. Starting April 1, 2000, the project began its fourth year with a budget total of $131,400.
[For more information, contact Jennifer Wolfe, The Huron River Watershed Council, 1100 North Main
Street, Suite 210, Ann Arbor, Ml 48104. Phone: (734) 769-5123; e-mail: Jwolf@hrwc.oro; web:
www.hrwc.oro. 1
Technical Notes
New Technique Helps Streams Restore Themselves
Retired biologist Bill Zeedyk's new stream restoration technique hands much of the hard work back
to the stream. The technique modifies the shape and dimensions of incised stream channels by
installing in-stream structures that encourage storm flows to selectively remove streambank soils,
thereby creating meanders and the room needed for a new floodplain to develop within the
channel.
According to Zeedyk, this induced meandering technique is best suited for streams that fall into
the Rosgen F or G classification scheme (streams that are deeply incised with grades of less than
4 percent), such as many of those found in the arid Southwest. "These streams might eventually
stabilize themselves but induced meandering accelerates the process," states Zeedyk.
Zeedyk developed the induced meandering technique while working on watershed restoration
projects in Mexico. "We needed an inexpensive, low-tech solution to gulleyed channels that would
allow us to use local materials and labor. I have worked in watershed management much of my life
and was familiar with many different restoration methods. This technique seemed like a viable
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
23
-------
New Technique
Helps Streams
Restore Themselves
(continued)
alternative to a full-blown stream reconstruction requiring heavy machinery or check dams that
create unnatural step pools that usually fail. A number of people have mentioned that they like this
technique because there isn't any heavy equipment to impact the site and no unnatural or
unsightly materials are used in construction."
How Does it Work?
The induced meandering technique initially increases bank erosion because it requires placing
baffles in the stream to direct the erosive force of the water during storm flows into the opposite
stream bank. Any vegetation located on the streambank at the intended point of erosion is
removed. As water erodes the streambank, some of the eroded sediment is deposited behind the
next downstream baffle as a point bar. This erosion/deposition cycle accelerates as meanders form
and vegetation colonizes the new deposits. A new floodplain develops in what was originally a fairly
straight incised channel. Riffle-weirs are constructed to help control stream bed elevation, channel
slope, and pool depth, just as naturally occurring riffles would do.
"Initially you produce more sediment than you store in the point bars and on your developing
floodplain. However, in time sediment deposition exceeds ongoing erosion," explains Zeedyk.
"The question is whether you are willing to wait for this to happen. This technique takes time,
which adds some uncertainty to the restoration process."
It's Cheaper, But it Takes Longer
According to Zeedyk, the induced meandering method is only about 20 percent of the cost of a
full channel reconstruction (using heavy machinery, rootwads, logs, etc.). Costs are lower because
the project relies on the power of running water to shape the channel. Local labor removes
unwanted vegetation and constructs and maintains in-stream structures. All materials used are local
and freely available, including rocks and stakes. The actual development of the meanders and
floodplain is left to the forces of nature. Induced meandering might be the ideal solution in cases
where the existing stream type meets Rosgen F or G channel type classification and restoration
money is limited. "But people must remember that results are
uncertain and it can take several years to achieve stability,"
explains Zeedyk.
Key Components of the Induced
Meandering Technique
Channel Desian. Three baffles and two riffle-weirs
are needed to create an induced meander.
Structures are installed at the aDDrooriate intervals to
Generate a channel with a meander pattern and
channel dimensions similar to a stable reference
reach with similar oeolooic characteristics. The
oroiect reach should include at least two meander
lenoths.
v' Baffles redirect flow and helo create meanders.
TheV occuoV 40 to 70 percent of the channel
width and are constructed bV drivino a arid of
stakes into the stream bed and infillino with rocks.
s Riffle-weirs are also constructed with stakes and
rocks and are olaced in the streambed halfway
between baffles, at the anole of anticipated future
flow, to helo control stream bed elevation,
channel slooe, and oool death.
Channel Characteristics. Response to baffle and
riffle-weir installation varies with the variability in
discharoe events; water death and velocity;
resistance of the stream bed and banks to shear
stress; and the tVoe, dimensions, comoetence, and
rouahness of the baffles and riffle-weirs. Low flow
periods encouraoe establishment of native
veoetation on ooint bars and floodolain, which
increases stability.
Included in the overall cost is the labor required for maintaining
the in-stream baffles and riffle-weirs. Maintenance is high initially
because the first couple of storms can damage new structures
which then need to be repaired. But, maintenance requirements
decrease once vegetation begins to stabilize evolving point bars,
the floodplain develops, and storm flows have less impact on
structures. Also, as the opposite bank erodes, baffles are extended
to "chase" the receding bank until design dimensions are reached.
Real-world Application
Zeedyk and his partners are applying the new technique to a
half-mile-long reach of the Pueblo Colorado Wash in Ganado,
Arizona, at Hubbell Trading Post, a National Historic Site
operated by the National Park Service within the Navajo Nation.
Partner organizations include the National Park Service, several
Navajo Nation agencies, the Arizona Water Protection Fund
Commission (major project funder), and the Ganado Unified
School District, among others. Since the project began in 1997,
monitoring indicates that restoration increased sinuosity in the
stream by 20 percent, adding approximately 500 feet of stream
length to the original 2,600 feet, and consequently decreasing the
channel slope. The stream now supports 19 permanent pools,
instead of the initial three. Although a large destructive storm
event in 1999 set their efforts back, lesser storms since then have
recovered what was lost and continue to build meanders and
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Now Tochniquo widen the floodplain. The recovering stream is developing stable banks, a rising water table, and
Helps Streams more plant and wildlife species diversity.
Restore Themselves
(continued) Zeedyk has been keeping a photographic record of the project's progress every six months since
1997. "Sometimes I am amazed by the difference when I look back through the pictures. But it is
definitely working. Our measurements have shown that certain areas of the project reach are
beginning to evolve into the Rosgen E channel type, which is the climax channel type," notes
Zeedyk proudly. To help spread the word of the project's success, Zeedyk has given presentations at
meetings and conducted several workshops on induced meandering concepts and practices.
Zeedyk knows their efforts are small compared to the overall problem. "We are only working on a
very small percentage of the watershed. Right now the sediment being transported from unrestored
areas upstream of the project site is helping the restored reach evolve more quickly. In the long
term I don't know if it could overwhelm us. We are using native wetland plants, like American
threesquare, that have the ability to grow up through successive layers of sediment deposits, so I
hope we can keep up."
Future Research
Zeedyk and his partners have recently received additional grant monies from the state of Arizona to
continue monitoring and measurement of the Pueblo Colorado Wash site. "We hope the data will
demonstrate that this technique really works over time." A number of people have been impressed
enough by the ongoing success of the current project that they have asked Zeedyk to help initiate
his technique on several sites on public and private ranch lands throughout the region.
[For more information contact Bill ZeedVk, P.O. Box 582, Sandia Park, NM. Phone: (505) 281-9066;
e-mail: billz-oenez@att.net.l
Safe Winter Flying Versus Clean Water
Winter air travelers often see expanses of beautiful snow-covered landscapes, but it's what they
don't see that can be a problem. Airport runoff containing anti-icing and deicing chemicals often
finds its way into nearby surface waters. In fact, in Aviation And the Environment, a report
published in August 2000, the General Accounting Office ranked water quality second after noise
as the most important environmental issue facing managers at the 50 busiest airports in the United
States. Since 45 of the nation's 50 busiest airports are located within three miles of a waterbody, the
water pollution potential from airport runoff is quite significant.
To ensure safety of winter aircraft flight, anti-icing and deicing fluids (ADFs) are applied to aircraft
and runways. Anti-icing fluids adhere to aircraft surfaces and prevent ice and snow buildup for set
periods of time, known as 'holdover' times. The aircraft remains safe from ice if it takes off within
the holdover time. Deicing fluids are typically used on aircraft immediately preceding departure
from the hangar or gate, or during snow or ice accumulation. To keep ice off the runways, airports
use combinations of ADFs to depress the freezing point on the pavement. When used before
freezing conditions set in, these chemicals prevent strong bonds from forming between the
pavement surface and ice molecules, enabling snow and ice to be removed easily using sweepers
and plows. Although some airports use non-chemical methods to prevent ice and snow
accumulation, most airports use ADFs because they ensure aircraft and passenger safety, are easy to
use and economical, and don't require physical infrastructure such as heated hangars.
A Chemical Cocktail
Four types of aircraft ADFs are available. They vary according to the concentrations of either
propylene or ethylene glycol (commonly known as antifreeze). Historically, ADFs for pavement
included urea, ethylene glycol, or a combination of the two. Today's pavement ADFs contain
additives like potassium acetate, sodium acetate, sodium formate, potassium formate, or calcium
magnesium acetate to lower freezing points.
So What's the Problem?
Ethylene and propylene glycol can wreak havoc on our waterways by depleting the water of oxygen
as they biodegrade. A 1998 TMDL study conducted by the Kentucky State Division of Water
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
25
-------
Safe Winter Flying
Versus Clean Water
(continued)
in a January 2000 reoort,
Preliminary Data SummarV Airoort
Deicino Ooerations, EPA estimated
a current annual national ADF
usaoe volume of 35 million Gallons
at 212 facilities in the United States, I
Typically, airlines aoolV 150 Gallons
of deicino fluid to a commercial Jet,
but may need to aoolV as much as
2,000 Gallons durino a severe
storm. Airlines aoolV anti-icino
fluids in much smaller volumes
only about 35 Gallons for a
commercial Jet.
indicated that deicing one large passenger jet could generate a BODs equivalent to the daily
domestic wastewater generated by 5,000 people. In addition, when glycols are released into
anaerobic conditions their biodegradation can release byproducts such as acetaldehyde, ethanol,
acetate, and methane that are highly toxic to many aquatic organisms. Urea used on runways also
biodegrades and releases ammonia and nitrogen, resulting in algal growth and decay that depletes
the water of oxygen.
Water Quality Regulation at Airports
Some regulations control ADFs. All airports discharging more than 100,000 gallons per year of
glycol-based fluids or 100 tons of urea into navigable waterways must obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The NPDES permit requires airports to develop a
storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which identifies the sources and types of pollution,
delineates drainage basins in the facility, defines structural controls on storm water runoff, and
describes BMPs to minimize and prevent pollution from entering the storm water drainage system.
The SWPPP is the legal document holding the airport facility accountable for all discharges if and
when the airport is inspected by regulators for compliance with their stated BMPs.
Because no federal effluent limits exist for ADFs, standards across airports very
greatly, if they exist at all. The establishment of standards is influenced by whether
the receiving waterbody is designated as impaired, whether a total maximum daily
load (TMDL) has been developed for the water, and whether the state considers the
effluent to be degrading the waters and not complying with state standards. Some
airports may only have to comply with their NPDES permit and may not need to
meet an established standard. Instead, an airport might have to merely report
concentrations of each effluent type (e.g., ammonia, total suspended solids) at a
specified frequency (e.g., once a month).
The airport facility has little or no control over how, when, or what type of ADFs are
administered and is often limited only to specifying where deicing can take place in
its jurisdiction. The deicing decisions depend on the specifications of aircrafts and
the judgment of the operators. To account for this uncertainty, many airports require
individual airline operators to be co-permitees, sharing information and
responsibility for BMPs.
What BMPs Are Available?
Many BMPs can lessen the effect of ADF runoff on water quality, including:
Aircraft (lettingpads. These pads consist of a concrete or asphalt platform, drainage
collection system, storm water pipes and drains, and wastewater storage facilities to contain
the runoff.
Parking ramp/passenger terminal gate deicing collection. Airports can collect ADFs
from impervious surfaces using a modified storm water drainage system, where runoff is
captured in a diversion box that can be opened to different outflows (separate underground
storage tanks or mobile storage tanks) depending on the quality of the runoff.
Storm drain inserts. Economical storm drain inserts modify existing storm water drains
between seasons. A system at the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport places compression plugs
into storm drains when there is ADF-treated water, allowing the fluids to drain into
temporary collection facilities. The contaminated storm water is pumped out periodically
and taken by trucks to detention ponds, where glycol can be recovered.
Glycol vacuum vehicles. Glycol vacuum vehicles cost less than other structural BMPs,
allow high concentrations of ADFs to be directly collected for storage or recovery, and give
flexible, versatile, and mobile wastewater collection. When used in conjunction with storm
drain inserts or valves, they are very effective in removing ADFs from general wastewater
discharge. Dulles Airport in Northern Virginia uses a mobile computer-controlled
pumping unit that discharges to different storage tanks based on measured concentrations
of the ADFs.
26
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Safe Winter Flying Volume reduction on paved areas. Airports can reduce the amount of ADFs applied by
Versus Clean Water using mechanical methods such as plows and snow trenches and by applying ADFs at
(continued) recommended rates and maintaining calibration equipment. Using pavement sensors
instead of air temperature measurements can help focus and time chemical application.
Some airlines try to reduce the amount of deicing fluids that are used on aircraft, while still
ensuring safety. Some reduction methods include the following:
Preventive anti-icing. Airlines sometimes treat the aircraft with a glycol based anti-icing
fluid prior to the start of icing conditions, or overnight during such conditions, to limit ice
and snow buildup. Correctly treated aircraft require substantially less deicing fluid than
untreated aircraft.
Accurate forecasting of weather conditions. The National Center for Atmospheric
Research recently developed the Weather Support to Deicing Decision Making System to
help manage airfield snow removal and aircraft deicing and anti-icing operations. Delta
Airways currently uses a commercial version at New York's La Guardia airport.
Infrared heating systems for deicing. Some airlines use infrared heating systems in
hangars to warm aircraft surfaces. Buffalo-Niagara International Airport in New York has a
installed a commercial system, called InfraTek, that deices four to five aircraft in one hour.
Forced hot air blowers. Several airlines, including American and Midwest Express, are
testing a forced hot air system that delivers a fine spray of deicing fluid at 72 miles per
hour under pressure. The system drastically reduces the amount of deicing fluid used
during each application.
Heated pavements. Electrical current in coiled wires laid underneath paved surfaces
generates heat that keeps temperature slightly above freezing and prevents ice.
The Big Picture
Airports balance the need to ensure aircraft safety with the need to reduce environmental impacts of
ADFs. Some airlines use BMPs to contain ADFs and recycle them, treat them on-site, or channel
them to an off-site treatment facility. Many airlines also try to limit their use of ADFs by relying on
good winter maintenance practices. Unless required by regulation, an airlines willingness to install or
modify practices is influenced by cost and the education of personnel involved in deicing. When
regulations are in place, enforcement remains a challenge because airports serve as umbrellas for
different airline operators who are responding to engineering requirements of the aircraft, passenger
volume, the best judgment of professionals, and the weather.
(For more information on the use of ADFs, contact Bonnie Wilson, Aimorts Council International of North
America, 1775 K Street, NW, Suite 500, Washinoton, DC 20006. Phone: (202) 293-8500; fax: (202)
331-1362; web site: www.aci-na.oro.]
Reviews and Announcements
2001 National Urban Conference September 5-8, 2001 Washington, DC
The 2001 National Urban Forest Conference, September 5-8, 2001, at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in
Washington, DC, will center on the theme "Investing Natural Capital in Urban Places: A Green
Revenue Stream for Metro America." Conference attendees will learn about new techniques to
measure green infrastructure and to calculate the benefits it provides using the latest computer
technology. The conference will also highlight public policies designed to increase natural capital and
action programs that engage communities in rebuilding the green infrastructure. Conference partici-
pants can use these strategies to turn their communities' gray infrastructure into shades of green.
Registration and exhibitor materials are available on www.americanforests.org click on Trees,
Cities, and Sprawl, then on 2001 conference. One-day and half-day tours and workshops will be
offered on September 5. The main conference program will be September 6-8. For logistics and
program information, e-mail Cheryl Kollin at ckollin@amfor.org. For registration information,
e-mail Kasey Russell at kaseyrussell@citynet.
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 27
-------
Congress Passes Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000
On October 25, 2000, Congress passed the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, establishing a
national goal of restoring one million acres of estuary habitat by 2010 and authorizing $275
million over the next five years for matching funds for local estuary habitat restoration projects.
The Act reauthorizes the National Estuary Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Long Island
Sound Program, and the Clean Lakes Program, and authorizes pilot programs on alternative water
sources, a Lake Ponchartrain restoration program, and funding for the cleanup of the Tijuana river
near San Diego. The legislation also establishes an Estuary Habitat Restoration Council that is
responsible for developing a National Habitat Restoration Strategy within one year and for
reviewing and establishing funding priorities among restoration projects. EPA serves on the
Council, which is chaired by the Army. To view the Act, visit EPAs web site at
www. epa. go v/o wow/estuaries.
New LID Publications Available
EPA and the Low Impact Development Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to research,
development, and training for water resource and natural resource protection issues, conducted a
literature review of low impact development (LID) studies to assess the state of knowledge about
LID practices. Low Impact Development: A Literature Review contains a summary of the current
monitoring and effectiveness data on LID practices and a brief overview of LID principles and
programmatic issues such as application, ownership, and cost. The report and four fact sheets
describing local LID case studies are available on EPAs web site at
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lidlit.html.
Ecologically Based Municipal Land Use Planning
The solution to urban sprawl rests in the communities themselves and in the way they construct
municipal master plans. William Honachefsky's new book, Ecologically Based Municipal Land Use
Planning, will revolutionize the way American communities plan their land use. Drawing upon
more than 30 years of experience, including the investigation of thousands of cases of
environmental abuse, Honchefsky presents a combination of strategies that:
1. Help restore the Municipal Master Plan to its rightful place of dominance over zoning;
2. Incorporate 30 years of scientific research and a host of new and unique "ecological
indicators" with which a community can finally assess the health of the natural resources
that help sustain it;
3. Apply geographic information systems to its problem solving;
4. Make preservation of the community's "ecological infrastructure" the paramount priority of
the Municipal Plan.
This book is about the empowerment of regular citizens and the crafting of scientifically based
local land use master plans that will withstand judicial scrutiny. For copies, contact CRC
Press/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL at (800) 272-7737.
Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to
Federal Land and Resource Management
The Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management
was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, October 18, 2000. It was prepared by an
interagency team composed of representatives from EPA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Army
Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Defense, and
Energy.
28
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Unified Federal Signatories of the policy believe that the watershed-based approach outlined in this policy will help
Policy tor a to protect and accelerate the restoration of watersheds on federal lands. The new policy calls for the
VVatersnea Approac development of a science-based approach to watershed assessment for federal lands, use of a
' ' watershed management approach when protecting and restoring watersheds, improved compliance
with water quality requirements under the Clean Water Act, and enhanced interagency
collaboration. Implementation of the policy could significantly change some of the participating
agencies' watershed management procedures. The policy and additional background can be found
on the Internet at www.cleanwater.gov/ufp.
14th Annual National Conference
Enhancing the States' Lake Management Programs: Integrating Nonpoint Source
Watershed Management with Lake Management and Protection
April 17-20, 2001* Congress Plaza Hotel Chicago, Illinois
This year's conference, sponsored by the Chicago Botanic Garden, EPA's Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, and EPA Region 5, will mark the 14th consecutive year that state lake
program managers have gathered in Chicago to discuss successes, evaluate obstacles, and explore
new approaches for improving state lake management programs. Recognizing the critical link
between effective lake management and nonpoint source pollution control, the 2001 conference
will focus on innovative approaches for connecting these two complementary programs.
EPA is encouraging each of its own regional Nonpoint Source Coordinators and Clean Lakes
Coordinators to attend, as well as the nonpoint source program and lakes program managers from
each state and tribal environmental agency. In fact, this conference will be the first formal national
gathering of federal and state program staff representing both the lake and nonpoint source
management disciplines.
The cost for attending the conference is $145 (after March 30 $170), which includes two break-
fasts, two lunches, breaks, and a special evening reception at the Chicago Botanic Garden. For more
information, contact Bob Kirschner, Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook Road, Glenco, IL
60022. Phone: (847) 835-6837, fax: (847) 835-1635, e-mail: bkirschn@chicagobotanic.org.
Web Sites Worth a Bookmark
WWW. umpOdtdDdSe. Org.' This database provides access to BMP performance data in a standard format for more
than 90 BMP studies conducted over the past 15 years. It was developed by the Urban Water
Resources Research Council of American Society of Civil Engineers under a cooperative agreement
with EPA.
WWW. USda.gOV/OC/photO/OpCphsea.htm: The USDA Online Photo Center provides high-quality digital
photos of various agricultural activities and conservation issues.
WWW.arS.USda.gOV/iS/graphiCS/photOS/indeX.html: USDAs Agricultural Research Service Image
Gallery provides high-resolution digital photos of plants, animals, crops, insects, field and lab
research, and more.
WWW. SmartgrOWth.org/index2. html: The mission of the Smart Growth Network is to encourage development
that better serves the economic, environmental, and social needs of communities. It provides a
forum for information-sharing, education, tool development and application, and collaboration on
smart growth.
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 29
-------
Datebook
DATEBOOK is oreoared with the coooeration of our readers. If You would like a meetina or event olaced
in the DATEBOOK, contact the NPS News-Notes editors. Notices should be in our hands at least two
months in advance to ensure timelV oublication.
Meetings and
March 2001
20-22
21-23
28
April 2001
4-6
17-20
Events
18-20
30-May 2
May 2001
1-3
3-4
14-17
16-18
20-24
June 2001
10-15
27-July 1
July 2001
30-Aug 2
August 2001
19-24
27-30
Dairy Manure Systems; Eauipment and Technology, Rochester, NY. Contact the Natural Resource, Agriculture, and
Engineering Service Cooperative Extension, 152 Rile^-Robb Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-5701. Phone: (60?)
255-7654; fax: (607) 254-8770; e-mail: nraes@cornell.edu; web: www.nraes.org.
Iff1' Annual Southeastern Lakes Management Conference, Knoxville, TN. Contact Sue Robertson, Tennessee Vallev
Authority (423) 751-3747; e-mail: ssrobertson@tva.gov; web: www.don-anderson.com/senalms2001.
Alternative Water and Wastewater Technologies for Small Communities Conference, Omaha, NE. Contact M.T. Rose,
Nebraska Environmental Partnerships at (402)-471-3193.
llth Tennessee Water Resources Symposium, Burns, TN. Contact Tack Gordon at (93l) 372-3257; fax (93l)
372-6352; e-mail: jgordon@tntech.edu.
Enhancing the States' Lake Management Programs Integrating Nonpoint Source Watershed Management with 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@chicagobotanic.org;
web: www.nalms.org/svmDOsia/chicago/index.htm
4 National Mitigation Banking Conference, Fort Lauderdale, FL. Contact Terrene Institute. Phone: (800)
726-4853; e-mail: terrinst@aol.com; web: www.terrene.org.
Water Quality, Monitoring, & Modeling, San Antonio, TX. Contact Michael T. 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@awra.org; web: www.awra.org.
Urban Wildlife Management Conference, Nebraska Citv, NE. Contact the National Arbor Dav Foundation, P.O.
Box 81415, Lincoln, NE 68501-1415. Phone: (402) 474-5655; e-mail: conferences@arbordav.org; web:
www.arbordav.org/Drograms/conferencereg21 .html.
Negotiating Effective Environmental Agreements, Berkeley CA. Contact CONCUR at (510) 649-8008 or on the
web at www.concurinc.com/training.html.
2nd National Conference: Nonpoint Source Pollution Information dr Education Programs, Glencoe, IL. Contact Bob
Kirschner, Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook Rd., Glencoe, IL, 60022. Phone: (847) 835-6837, fax:
(847) 835-1635, e-mail: bkirschn@chicagobotanic.org.
2001 Communities Working J or Wetlands, Orlando, FL. Contact Save Our Streams at (800) 96^-^004 or on the web
atwww.iwla.org/sos/awm/awmconf.html.
World Water and Environmental Resources Congress 2001, Orlando, FL. Contact: ASCE - World Headauarters,
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400; Phone: (800) 548-2723 or (703) 295-6300; fax: (703)
295-6144; e-mail: conf@asce.org.
'ith International Conference on Diffuse Pollution, Milwaukee, WI. Contact Vladimir Novotnv, Institute for Urban
Environmental Risk Management, Marauette University Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881. Phone: (414) 288-3524;
fax: (414) 288-7521; e-mail: environment@marauette.edu; web: www.mu.edu/environment/iwa-Dage.htm.
National Watershed Forum, Arlington, VA. Contact Todd Barker, Meridian Institute, (802) 899-2625; e-mail:
tbarker@merid.org; web: www.merid.org.
Managing River Flows for Biodiversity, Fort Collins, CO. Contact Nicole Rousmaniere via e-mail at
nrousmaniere@tnc.org; web: www.freshwaters.org/conference.
Linking Stormwater BMP Designs and Performance to Receiving Water Impacts Mitigation, Snowmass, CO. Contact
Ben Urbonas, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, CO. Phone: (303) 455-6277; fax: (303)
455-7880; e-mail: burbonas@udfcd.org.
9th National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop: Monitoring and Modeling Nonpoint Source Pollution in the
Agricultural Landscape, IndianaDolis, IN. Contact Tammv Tavlor, Conservation Technologv Information Center,
1220 Potter Drive, Suite 170, West Lafayette, IN 47906. Phone: (765) 494-9555; fax (765) 494-5969; e-mail:
tavlor@ctic.ourdue.edu.
30
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
-------
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon
(Mail or Fax this coupon to us)
#64
Our Mailing Address:
Our Fax Numbers:
NPS News-Notes, do Terrene Institute, 4 Herbert Street,
Alexandria, VA 22305
NPS News-Notes (202) 260-1977 and (703) 548-6299.
Use this Coupon to
(check one or more)
LJ Share your Clean Water Experiences
O Ask for Information
O 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:
MARCH 2001. ISSUE #64
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 31
-------
Nonooint Source NEWS-NOTES is an occasional bulletin dealina with the condition of the water-related environment,
the control of nonooint sources of water oollution and the ecosVstem-driven manaaement and restoration of water-
sheds. NPS oollution comes from manV sources and is caused bV rainfall or snowmelt movina over and throuah the
around. As the runoff moves, it Dicks UD and carries awaV natural oollutants and oollutants resultina from human activ-
ity, finally deoositina them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and aroundwater. NPS oollution is associated
with land manaaement oractices involvina aariculture, silviculture, minina, and urban runoff. HVdroloaic modification is
a form of NPS oollution which often adversely affects the biolooical inteoritv of surface waters.
Editorial contributions from our readers sharina knowledae, exoeriences and/or ooinions are invited and welcomed.
(Use the COUPON on oaae 31.) However, NEWS-NOTES cannot assume anV responsibility for oublication or
nonoublication of unsolicited material nor for statements and ooinions exoressed by contributors. All material in
NEWS-NOTES has been oreoared bv the staff unless otherwise attributed. For inauiries on editorial matters, call (703)
548-5473 or FAX (202) 260-1977.
Nonooint Source NEWS-NOTES is oroduced bV the Terrene Institute under an EPA Coooerative Aareement (#
820957-01) from the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Water, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection AaencV. It is distributed free of cost. Views exoressed do not necessarily reflect those of EPA or
the Terrene Institute. Mention of commercial oroducts or publications does not constitute endorsement, or recommen-
dation for use, bV EPA or the Terrene Institute.
NONPOINTSOURCE NONPROFIT ORG.
News-Notes U-%Pฐ,^AGE
c/o Terrene Institute Merrifield, VA
4 Herbert Street Permit No. 1308
Alexandria, VA 22305 I
------- |