September 2002
#69
N on point Source
News-Notes
The Condition of the Water-Related Environment
The Control ofNonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
The Ecological Management & Restoration of Watersheds
Fond Farewell to Terrene Institute
After publishing Nonpoint Source News-Notes since its humble beginnings in 1989, Terrene
Institute will be phasing out some of its programs and saying goodbye to Nonpoint Source
News-Notes. Terrene's Executive Vice President, Judy Taggart, has decided to retire and rest
on her well-earned laurels.
Some programs and publications will go to other organizations, such as the popular
Lake Pocket Book, which will now be available from the North American Lake Management
Society (www.nalms.org). And the National Mitigation Banking Conference will be managed
in cooperation with Terrene by JT&A, inc. at www.mitigationbankingconference.com. Visit
www.terrene.org for more information on Terrene programs and publications.
News-Notes will continue to be published by the Nonpoint Source Branch of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. It will
continue to be available on EPA's web site at www.epa.gov/owow/nps.
The staff of News-Notes will miss the dedication and hard work of Terrene to water pollution
prevention and wish Judy and her staff at Terrene all the best!
Inside this Issue
Commentary
Raising Volunteer Monitoring to New Heights 2
Special Focus: Volunteer Monitoring
Hold the Date! October 18 isNational Water Monitoring Day 3
"Success" Issue of Volunteer Monitor Released 4
EPA's Online Directory of Volunteer Programs 4
Washington's New Monitoring Resources 5
Join a Volunteer Monitoring Listserv 6
Volunteers Help Keep Their Waters Clean 6
Pennsylvanians Develop Volunteer Monitoring Database 8
Teaching the Adults of Tomorrow 8
Applying GREEN's Resources to the Classroom 9
Volunteers Dip-In 9
Volunteers Map Nitrogen Distribution 10
Volunteer Wetland Monitoring: An Introduction and Resource Guide . . 12
News from States, Tribes, and Localities
New Mexico Artists: Friends of the Wild Rivers 12
Halifax Harbor: Shining Example of a Clean Marina 13
Notes on Watershed Management
Storm Water Programs Reach Out to the Public 14
New Program Helps Developers Build Better 16
Working to Manage Watersheds Locally 17
New Watershed Project Management Guide 19
Agricultural Notes
Creating the Monterey Bay Farmers'Clean Water Initiative 19
Nutrient Trading Tools for Cleaner Water 21
Rice Farmers Hold Winter Water on Fields for Triple Win 22
Technical Notes
Observations on Technical Achievability in TMDL Development 23
Sediment Sampling Instrumentation Now Available to the Public 26
Notes on Education
Washington State Features Exceptional Environmental
Education Resources 26
Sharon and Beginning Readers Search for the Environment 27
Be Prepared to Restore! 27
Reviews and Announcements
National Coastal Condition Report 28
Terrene Institute Releases New Puzzle 29
Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual Released 29
Road Maintenance Training Video Set 29
Web Sites Worth a Bookmark 30
DATEBOOK
THE COUPON
30
31
All issues of News-Notes are accessible on EPA's website: www.epa.gov/OWDW/info/NewsNotes/index.htm
-------
Commentary
Raising Volunteer Monitoring to New Heights
By JeffVonk, Director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Because little historical data exist on the quality of America's streams, rivers, and lakes, there is a
need for state and federal agencies to seek information on surface water quality to address land-use
management decisions. Local policymakers and public conservation coalitions need to focus
attention on the ecological health of surface waters for help in addressing human health concerns,
tourism, and nonpoint source pollution from confined animal feeding operations, agricultural and
non-agricultural fertilizer and pesticide use, and soil erosion. In Iowa specifically, most of the
state's 72,000 miles of streams remain unmonitored by professionals. This raises a question: how
can we even begin to address these concerns if we don't have the data we need? For Iowa, part of
the answer lies in volunteer monitoring.
In 1996 the Iowa Environmental Council, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting Iowa's
natural environment, began a voluntary water quality monitoring program. In 1998 the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) built on the Council's success, and along with the Iowa
Division of the Izaak Walton League, Iowa Farm Bureau, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
and the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory launched a statewide volunteer monitoring
program called IOWATER. The program has been the pride and joy of the Iowa DNR since its
start. In fact, more than 25,000 volunteer hours have been logged under IOWATER, the
equivalent of well over a quarter million dollars. And of course, its potential value to planning and
water quality improvement can be priceless in a state leading the nation in the production of pork,
poultry (eggs), corn, and soybeans. A state with extraordinary agricultural and industrial output
demands extraordinary measures to protect water quality. Iowa's citizens from businesses to
farmers to school teachers meet that challenge through the IOWATER program.
IOWATER, a vital component of the Iowa DNR Ambient Monitoring Program, allows citizen
monitors to fill in the gaps in water quality information. The collection of this supplemental data
by concerned citizen volunteers not only aids decision-making when it comes to funding priority
water quality initiatives or managing growth, it also provides valuable public education and,
perhaps most importantly, contributes toward personal ownership and responsibility for both
problems and solutions two factors key in the fight against nonpoint source pollution. Water
quality continues to be one of the top environmental concerns of Iowa's citizens, and IOWATER
provides an opportunity for citizens to actively protect Iowa's water quality through monitoring.
IOWATER sponsors two levels of training in classrooms and streams across the state. Level 1
teaches biological, chemical, physical, and stream habitat assessments. Level 2 provides specific tips
for designing a monitoring program, preparing a Quality Assurance Project Plan, and establishing
data interpretation methods. Hands-on streamside sessions cover monitoring for choloride, general
coliform, and K coll bacteria. Advanced Level 2 modules offer specific types of monitoring such as
benthic macroinvertebrate indexing, standing water, and soil. Since the program's inception, more
than 1,100 volunteers have been trained at Level 1 workshops and 150 volunteers at Level 2
workshops. More than 230 participants have participated in the advanced Level 2 modules.
IOWATER doesn't end when the data have been collected and the hip waders hung up to dry.
Trained IOWATER volunteers submit their data to an online database where they register monitored
sites, submit collected data, and access data collected by others. Data can be searched and retrieved by
site, county, or watershed, or by using a map-based Arc-View Geographic Information System
program. As of April 2002, volunteers had registered more than 800 monitoring sites.
Early comparison of the volunteer data to that being collected professionally by the Iowa DNR and
the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory shows a good match in overall trends. Testing
methods used by the IOWATER program and the data collected by volunteer monitors will
continue to be evaluated, and changes to testing procedures will be made where necessary.
2 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
IO WATER data will also be available soon to water quality and land use professionals through the
iowa QNR m^ EPA's STO RET database.
Raising Volunteer
Monitoring to New
Heights
(continued) So what are the ingredients needed to start a successful statewide volunteer monitoring program in
other states? First and foremost, states need dedicated funding to pay for full-time staff to lead and
carry the program. State water quality professionals are often pulled in so many directions they do
not have time to sustain such a program. States will need to identify and hire full-time experienced
staff dedicated to the program. Secondly, states should design their programs to be as flexible as
possible. That may mean flexibility in terms of program oversight, responsibilities, or allowing
local groups to design their own monitoring and action plans. For example, IO WATER volunteers
and program staff discuss various monitoring strategies, but ultimately the volunteers decide the
monitoring location, frequency, and technique.
Another key ingredient for a successful volunteer monitoring program is the oversight and
guidance of an advisory committee. IO WATER is overseen by an Executive Committee that
includes the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa Farm Bureau,
University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory, Iowa Chapter of the Izaak Walton League, USD A
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Iowa Association of Naturalists, Iowa Conservation
Education Council, and the Iowa Environmental Council. A larger technical advisory committee
meets twice annually and consists of volunteer monitors and several other conservation,
educational, and agricultural organizations in Iowa. The technical advisory committee provides
direction for future needs and offers support for present efforts.
Perhaps the most important ingredient in the IOWATER program is how it is perceived by its
citizen monitors. It may be a cliche, but it is true IOWATER is truly a program by the people
for the people. IOWATER is not a government program with citizen involvement; it is a
citizen-based program with government involvement. The government merely provides a
framework so that citizens can use the information to actively promote responsible local
decision -making in protecting water quality. The program is directed by the needs of local
communities and individual volunteers within Iowa's communities. Whether it is a ninth grade
class testing water once a year, a conservation club testing several sites monthly, or a concerned
farmer monitoring a stream adjoining his field, everyone's needs are taken into account.
IOWATER will continue to educate the public about watersheds and water quality. This statewide
comprehensive and organized approach is promising a strong foundation for uncovering the many
stressors that affect watersheds. More complete data help determine what actions are needed to
protect or restore the resource. Watershed monitoring builds a sense of community, increases
commitment to meeting environmental goals, and ultimately, improves the likelihood of success
for environmental programs. IOWATER is making "waves of difference" across Iowa.
[The Iowa Department of Natural Resources administers and primarily funds IOWATER through state and
federal monies. For more information, contact Rich Leopold, IOWATER Coordinator, Wallace Office
Building, 502 £ 9th Street, Des Moines, I A 50319. Phone: (515)281-3252; e-mail:
richard.leopold@3nr.state.ia.us; Internet: www.iowater.net]
Special Focus: Volunteer Monitoring
Hold the Date! October 18 is National Water Monitoring Day
October 18 is the 30l anniversary of the signing of the Clean Water Act. To mark the occasion,
and as part of the celebration of 2002 as the Year of Clean Water, volunteer monitors, water
quality professionals, students, government leaders, and the public will head out to monitor local
streams, lakes, beaches, wetlands, and bays. National Water Monitoring Day will also include
stream and beach cleanups, educational events, and water festivals.
National Water Monitoring Day was designed to educate the public about watersheds, pollution,
and the importance of monitoring; build better collaboration between professionals and volunteer
water monitors; and celebrate the role of volunteer monitors and the accomplishments of the
Clean Water Act.
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOI NT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Hold the Date!
October 18 is
National Water
Monitoring Day
(continued)
Participants will use a simple National Water Monitoring Day kit that can be purchased for
$16.75 through the Year of Clean Water web site at www.yearofcleanwater.org (the kit can be used
to test up to 50 samples) to test for temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and water clarity. Trained
volunteer monitors and professionals will use their usual methods for technique and equipment
and may monitor a broader range of water quality conditions.
To support the monitoring effort, Earthforce/GREEN, a national youth-based environmental
monitoring and civic action organization, has adapted its volunteer database to accept National
Water Monitoring Day data. Data will not be quality-assured or extensively analyzed, since
parameters and methods were selected primarily because of simplicity and safety, and data will
come from volunteers with a wide range of training. The database will map monitoring site
locations and accommodate some digital photos of sites and events.
The event's primary sponsor, America's Clean Water Foundation (ACWF), leads a steering
committee composed of representatives from state and federal agencies, volunteer monitoring
groups, and national environmental groups. ACWF plans to produce a national report
summarizing and celebrating the event and expects state water quality agencies to also contribute
special discussions of their water quality conditions.
[For more information on National Water Monitoring Day, visit the ACWF's Year of Clean Water web site at
www.yearofcleanwater.org. For questions on EPA's National Water Monitoring Day role and activities,
contact Alice Mayio, National Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, (4503T), Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 566-1184; e-mail:
mayio. alice@epa.gov.]
"Success" Issue of Volunteer Monitor Released
The long-awaited "Success Stories" issue of the Volunteer
Monitor has just been released. This expanded special issue is
aimed at a wide audience and timed to coincide with National
Water Monitoring Day (October 18, 2002). It's perfect for handing
out at public events, watershed festivals, etc., to show the world
what volunteer monitors can accomplish.
Some of the volunteer monitoring successes include the
following:
4 Phosphorus testing helps protect scenic New Hampshire
lake from highway impacts;
4 Temperature data lead to restoration project to keep trout
cool;
4 100,000 acres of Maine clam flats opened for harvest with
help from volunteer monitors;
4 Algal blooms on Rhode Island ponds clear up after
volunteers trace source of excess nutrients;
4 Scientists make use of extensive volunteer-collected
database on Florida lakes to develop regional framework
for lake management;
4 And many more!
To place an order, send an e-mail to ellieely@earthlink.net with
name, organization's name, address (no P.O. boxes), and
requested number of copies. Printing and shipping costs apply.
For more information, contact Eleanor Ely at (415) 334-2284.
EPA's Online Directory of Volunteer Programs
Want to know more about volunteer monitoring programs in your area?
Check out yosemite.epa.gov/water/volmon.nsffor information on more than 800 volunteer water
monitoring programs underway across the United States. View programs by state or program
name, and add (or edit) your own information. Each entry lists program contacts, parameters and
environments monitored, and approximate number of volunteers. Many entries also include
information on quality assurance plans, budget, data users, and much more.
EPA first collected volunteer monitoring program information in 1988; the directory listed fewer
than 50 programs. Ten years later, the most recent directory listed 772 programs. EPA now accepts
updates to the database online. Work is underway to make the directory more searchable and to
summarize updated statistics about existing programs. A summary of the printed 1998 edition is
available at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/dir.html.
[For more information on the directory or EPA's volunteer monitoring program, visit
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/vol.html.]
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
Washington State's New Monitoring Resources
Volunteer monitors in Washington State can now report their water data in the online
NatureMapping database. A statewide education program hosted by the University of Washington,
fosters environmental monitoring of wildlife, water, and other natural resources. The database was
developed in response to a 1996 Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) survey, which
revealed that more than 12,000 students and adults across the state actively participated in
monitoring projects. The survey indicated that the volunteers' biggest need, after funding and
training, was a permanent, statewide, central repository for their data.
NatureMapping launched the instantly successful online data bank two and a half years ago. "It's
fun and easy to use," said Annie Phillips with Ecology. By May 2002, the database stored
information from 95 organizations, and paticipation continues to grow. Many of these
organizations report both current and historical data from multiple monitoring sites.
Reporters categorize their data at four different levels depending on the monitor's type of quality
assurance plan. "Basically speaking, Level 1 has no quality assurance plan," explained Phillips.
"Level 2 has an informal plan, but it's not very project-specific. Level 3 follows a specific written
plan. Level 4 follows the specific, written plan, but it also describes how the monitoring follows the
plan's objectives. We developed this method to characterize data quality years ago, and it's been
adapted by many states and programs."
The state now uses volunteer data to help characterize water quality. Ecology plans to include
Levels 3 and 4 data from the NatureMapping web site in its 2002 integrated water quality
assessment report. According to Phillips, "the integrated report has anew listing category called
Waters of Concern, where the data doesn't need to meet rigorous requirements. Waters of concern
are like red flags problems for professional monitors to keep an eye on."
Using the Site
Users may access the program at www.cbr.washington.edu/naturemapping. To submit data, a
reporter must first locate the site by using the zoom-in interactive maps. The reporter then
describes surrounding land uses, vegetation types, substrates, etc., and can use a form to report
information about the group itself, including monitoring descriptions, operational quality levels,
and contact information. The reporter can also provide information on restoration projects,
photos, and related web links. For each reported measurement, the user must select the
measurement method from a drop-down menu. This gives further indication of the data's
credibility. To review data, users click on a map or view a listing of sites and scroll down to
customize the monitoring project table (by group name, waterbody name, expertise level,
location, etc.).
The program still has limitations. Although participants have little trouble reporting data, viewing
submitted data is a different story. "Looking at the data is pretty awkward, and comparing
measurements between sites or over time is downright impossible so far. Karen Dvornich, who
created the NatureMapping program, is seeking funding to update the user interface and add other
enhancements to make the database easier to manipulate and view," explained Phillips.
Other Online Volunteer Monitoring Resources
In addition to the NatureMapping data repository at the University of Washington, Ecology
maintains another web site, Watch over Washington (www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/wow), that provides
volunteer monitors with updated information about news, educational and technical resources,
events, and reports. This comprehensive support system helps Washington State guarantee that
citizens will continue to generate good quality data.
[For more information contact Annie Phillips, Washington State Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600,
Olympia, WA 98504-7600. Phone: (360) 407-6408; e-mail: aphi461@scy.wa.gov.]
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69 NONPOI NT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Join a Volunteer Monitoring Listserv
Need someone to talk to about your volunteer monitoring project?
Try the Volmonitor Listserv. It's a national listserv for volunteer
monitors that was established by EPA to encourage
communication and information exchange among the nation's
growing number of volunteer environmental monitoring programs.
You will receive news on upcoming conferences, workshops,
special events, and new publications. It also serves as a
discussion forum and networking tool for volunteer monitors of all
types to ask and respond to questions about volunteer monitoring
methods, data quality, data management issues, and more. So
whether your group monitors wetlands, streams, or lakes, sign up
and get in the loop. To subscribe, send an e-mail to
listserver@jnixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov with the following in the
message body: subscribe volmonitor lastname firstname. Leave
the subject line blank. You will receive a welcome message once
subscribed.
Washington State also hosts e-mail listservs for volunteer monitors.
In August 2000 the Washington Department of Ecology developed
the Volunteer Monitor and NatureMapping/Watch Over Washington
listservs to support volunteer monitors and keep stakeholders
informed. The Volunteer Monitor Listserv encourages
communication between volunteers and project coordinators
personally active in Washington State. Other volunteer monitors,
coordinators, teachers, and people working on restoration projects
across the country use the NatureMapping/Watch Over Washington]
Listserv. Both listservs, with more than 250 members in the
NatureMapping and more than 350 members in the Volunteer
Monitor, host daily participation and provide substantial information
for volunteer monitors. Both listservs announce volunteer monitoring
events, job opportunities, training sessions, and more.
To subscribe to the Volunteer Monitor Listserv, visit
listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=volunteer-monitors&A=1, and
visit listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1 = naturemapping&A=1 to
subscribe to the NatureMapper/Watch Over Washington Listserv.
Volunteers Help "Keep" Their Waters Clean
While monitoring your local river, you find a problem. Perhaps you see a large sediment plume
clouding the water. Whom do you contact? How do you know whether the contacted agency will
have the time to follow up, let alone address the problem? If you are one of the thousands of
volunteers working with a Waterkeeper program, you no longer have to ask these questions. Each
Waterkeeper program addresses one or more waterbodies and employs a full-time, privately
funded, nongovernment employee (known as the Waterkeeper). The Waterkeeper advocates
compliance with environmental laws, responds to citizen complaints, identifies problems that affect
the waterbody, and devises appropriate remedies to address the problems. By adding this layer of
citizen action to the existing network of volunteers, Waterkeeper programs make a difference in
local communities.
Different Waterkeepers,
Different Waters
Waterkeeper groups are springing up around the country.
To find out whether a Waterkeeper program is active in
your area, check the complete listing of programs at
www.waterkeeper.org/PBK/keepers/keeper_find.asp. The
following lists a sample of the Waterkeeper program's
diverse locations and program names:
4 Assateague Coastkeeper, Maryland
4 Black Mesa Waterkeeper, Arizona
4 Buzzards Baykeeper, Massachusetts
4 Clinton Streamkeeper, Ohio
4 Cook Inletkeeper, Alaska
4 Delaware Riverkeeper, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Delaware, and New York
4 Great Salt Lakekeeper, Utah
4 Nicoya Gulfkeeper, Costa Rica
4 Sacramento-San Joaquin Deltakeeper, California
4 Village Creekkeeper, Alabama
Waterkeeper Origins
The Waterkeeper concept began on New York's Hudson
River when a coalition of commercial and recreational
fishermen mobilized in 1966 to rescue the river from its
polluters. In 1983, these local activists launched the first
Riverkeeper program, constructed a boat to patrol the river,
hired the first full-time public advocate, and began filing
lawsuits against municipal and industrial polluters. By 1998
the Hudson Riverkeeper had filed more than 150 successful
legal actions against Hudson River polluters. Largely as a
result of this work, the Hudson thrives once again.
Today's Waterkeepers share the same public advocacy
function as the Hudson Riverkeeper, but they don't all
pursue litigation as a first choice. Each Waterkeeper creates
a strategy that meets the needs of his or her local area. Most
Waterkeepers focus on conducting water quality
monitoring, participating in planning and public education,
and devising solutions with polluters. When necessary,
Waterkeepers pursue litigation as a final step to
enforcement.
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
Volunteers Help
"Keep" Their
Waters Clean
(continued)
A World Network of Waterkeepers
Almost 90 Waterkeeper programs in North America and other countries actively participate in the
Waterkeeper Alliance. The Alliance approves new Waterkeeper programs, licenses use of the
Waterkeeper program name, supports, assists, and represents Waterkeepers working on issues of
national interest, and maintains a Waterkeeper information exchange.
"Every Waterkeeper program is completely autonomous," explained AlisaHilfmger of the
Waterkeeper Alliance. "We don't dictate an individual program's activities. We know that the
member programs are more capable of dealing with issues on the local level. They know the area,
what the problems are, and how best to solve those problems. The Alliance is here to enhance their
work. The Alliance's job is to support their efforts by strengthening the Waterkeeper name,
concept, and influence."
Waterkeeper Wns in Delaware River Watershed!
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN), home and support organization for the Delaware
Riverkeeper, serves as a good example of how the Waterkeeper concept facilitates volunteer
monitor efforts to assess and improve the health of local watersheds. The Delaware Riverkeeper
supports diverse volunteer monitoring programs throughout the Delaware River watershed. The
group has a complex network of both volunteer and paid staff, which ensures that someone is
always available to help address volunteer monitors' general and specific questions. 'The Delaware
Riverkeeper's monitoring programs are designed to inform people and to encourage them to take
action," said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper.
The Delaware Riverkeeper encourages and supports different types of volunteer monitoring,
including chemical, biological, and visual parameters, depending on the monitoring goals. When
the monitors detect a problem, the Delaware Riverkeeper works with them to find and address the
source. "In one case we brought a citizens' suit against a polluter which we won," noted van
Rossum. "In other cases we initiated education programs or reported the problem to the
appropriate agency and ensured they took the appropriate action, including issuing fines."
The Delaware Riverkeeper tries to be proactive and not collect data "for data's sake," explained van
Rossum. "We work closely with our volunteer monitors to identify monitoring goals and establish
apian of action for achieving those goals. This is the direction that all monitoring should go.
Identify your goal, and structure your monitoring program accordingly." In one watershed, for
example, the monitors were most concerned about excessive sediment pollution from a variety of
sources, including construction sites and poorly maintained streambanks. DRN staff worked with
them to develop a local monitoring program, asking volunteers to collect visual data about the
location of apparent sediment pollution sources. The monitors presented data in a report to
watershed landowners and local government agencies that described how landowners can report
sediment and erosion control violations and identify sediment sources. Delaware Riverkeeper
volunteers now work with some of the landowners to solve their erosion problems through
restoration and also help municipalities strengthen sediment pollution control ordinances.
The Delaware Riverkeeper wants all volunteer monitoring data to be used to its fullest potential
and is working to get the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Delaware state agencies to use
volunteer data. "We believe volunteer data should play a key role in the TMDL process. Most
states don't have the resources to monitor all of their stream miles. Our volunteer data can help
state agencies target the waterbodies they should be assessing. Unfortunately, the states have been
reluctant to use volunteer data despite the fact that our monitors are trained and follow
EPA-approved protocols. We plan to work with all the states in the Delaware River watershed until
they understand the benefits that volunteer data can provide." In the meantime, the Delaware
Riverkeeper will continue to help citizens act to improve water quality in their communities.
[For more information about Waterkeeper Alliance, contact Alisa Hilfinger, Program Coordinator,
Waterkeeper Alliance, 828 South Broadway, Suite 100, Tarrytown, NY 10591. Phone: (914) 674-0622x208;
e-mail: info@waterkeeper.org; Internet: www.waterkeeper.org. For more information about the Delaware
Riverkeeper, contact Maya van Rossum, P.O. Box 326, Washington Crossing, PA 18977-0326.
Phone: (215) 369-1188, e-mail: keeper@delawareriverkeeper.org; Internet: www.delawareriverkeeper.org.]
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOI NT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Pennsylvanians Develop Volunteer Monitoring Database
Thousands of citizen monitors around the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania now have a repository
for their water quality data. The Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement (EASI), the
Pennsylvania Department of Aging, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection have joined forces to develop the state's first citizen volunteer water monitoring
database. Located online at www.environmentaleducation.org/default.lasso, the system contains
two major components. The first component, the Pennsylvania Senior Environment Corps
(PaSEC) database, compiles information from monitors using mandatory indicators, and the
second component, the Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Database, hosts data from groups using
their own indicators and monitoring techniques.
The PaSEC database accepts data from PaSEC members and any other group using standardized
protocols. The protocols include pH, conductivity, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, nitrates,
total phosphates, and sulfates. A habitat assessment and water quality rating, based on benthic
macroinvertebrate (bottom dwelling species) sampling, are also part of this component.
The Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Database can be used by any volunteer monitor using his/her
own protocols and quality control plans. Data fields include the above mentioned seven physical
and chemical indicators as well as water hardness, turbidity, chloride, chlorophyll a, total dissolved
solids, total suspended solids, aluminum, manganese, iron, fecal coliform, and Secchi depth.
[For more information on the PaSEC database, contact Elizabeth Grove, the PaSEC Statewide
Coordinator, 2998 Cape Horn Road, Red Lion, PA 17356-9067. Phone: (717) 244-6248; e-mail:
PaGreatSEC@aol.com. For more information on the Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Database, contact
EASI, P.O. Box250, Catlett, VA 20119-0250. Phone: (540) 788-3274; e-mail: easi@easi.org.]
Teaching the Adults of Tomorrow
The nonprofit groups Earth Force and Global Rivers Environmental Education Network
(GREEN) have teamed up to offer young water quality monitors and environmental educators a
network of support and information resources. Earth Force develops innovative tools for educators
to use to engage young people in community environmental problem solving. GREEN, a subset of
Earth Force, offers educators and watershed organizations services and tools to engage youth in
monitoring and addressing water resource problems.
GREEN's water quality monitoring resources are targeted at educators looking to protect their
rivers, streams, lakes, and oceans. GREEN communicates with educators primarily through its
interactive web site at www.green.org. The educators may sign up for an e-mail discussion group
and an e-mail newsletter. Educators can also download a series of monitoring and other water
information resources for free, including Background on Chemical Parameters, Background on
Biological Monitoring, Making Water Quality Connections, Connecting Watershed and Community,
Understanding Watersheds, and more.
The web site also allows educators to help youth monitors enter, track, and share their project data.
The site offers many links, such as EPA's Surf Your Watershed, to help youth monitors research
information about their watershed. Once they develop a project and begin collecting data, they
register their project online for free and enter the data (chemical, physical, benthic data, and/or
land, water, and physical inventory data) directly onto the web site. The students can track the
progress of their project through online project logs, which can be shared with all project
participants and other interested parties. The students can also maintain a common project
calendar to coordinate group efforts. The site allows each group to personalize its site with pictures
of the group in action and maps identifying the exact monitoring spot.
GREEN also sells educator materials and monitoring equipment through its web site. GREEN
offers many different books and teaching guides including Field Manual for Water Quality
Monitoring 12th Edition, GREEN's latest comprehensive monitoring guide, and Protecting our
Watersheds, a package to help educators guide students in correcting problems discovered in their
8 NONPOI NT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
Teaching the watershed. GREEN also sells diverse water quality monitoring equipment varying from a $30
Adults of Tomorrow start-up kit to a $400 advanced kit. Educators can also order one-on-one training on the technical
(continued) aspects of water monitoring and how to take action to correct problems.
[For more information contact Kris MacCubbin, Earth Force, Communications Marketing Director, 1908
Mount Vernon Avenue, 2nd Floor, Alexandria, VA 22301. Phone: (703) 299-9400; e-mail:
kmaccubbin@earthforce.org', Internet: www.earthforce.org.]
Applying GREEN'S Resources to the Classroom
The 9 grade advanced technology students at Penn Wood West Junior High School in Darby,
Pennsylvania, are looking for insects in decayed leaves taken from a local creek. So why are
students studying bugs in a technology class? 'It was a great opportunity to show students how
technology could be used in real-world situations," teacher George Ambrose recalls. "I decided to
share my passion for ecology with my students. To prepare, I looked for opportunities to partner
with people already doing good things. Earth Force was one of the best that I found."
Using materials provided by the Philadelphia Earth Force office, including the new
GREEN action curriculum Protecting Our Watersheds, the class focused on their local
watershed. "Before we did our assessments, students predicted that very few species, if
any, lived in the creek," reports their teacher. 'They were enthralled by the number and
varieties of living creatures that we did find."
Back in the computer lab, students investigated the data. They wrote reports and letters
to agencies requesting general information and clarification on existing regulations.
They searched the Internet for definitions, facts, background articles, published reports,
news stories, and other relevant information. They also compiled and analyzed their
benthic and chemical water quality data in a spreadsheet. Students used the assembled
information to prepare reports for classroom presentations and a display at the local
library's "Science in the Summer" program. Finally, the students used
videoconferencing equipment to collaborate with other schools on their projects.
Students in ninth grade advanced
technology class at Penn Wood West.
The students have been motivated by their research to expand their activities. So far, the students
have restored a streambank, planted trees, and established a school garden (certified as a
"schoolyard habitat" by the National Wildlife Federation) with the assistance of the Philadelphia
Earth Force office. They also shared their concerns with the local water company, which plans to
build a sewage treatment plant above the reservoir that is their drinking water source. As one
student put it, "Who would have thought that there was such life in this area and that our doing
something could make a difference?'
Volunteers Dip-In
This summer marks the ninth year of the Great North American Secchi Dip-In. The Dip-In is an
international effort in which volunteers produce a "snapshot" of the transparency of water in the
United States and Canada. Sponsored by the North American Lake Management Society and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Dip-In is directed by Kent State University biologists
Dr. Robert Carlson and Professor David Waller, and KSU geographer Dr. Jay Lee. The Dip-In
provides valuable information about water quality levels and the public's perception of what
qualifies as good water quality.
On one day between June 29 and July 14, more than 2,500 volunteers from volunteer monitoring
programs in the United States and Canada measured transparency in their favorite lake, reservoir,
river, or estuary. Most used an instrument called a "Secchi disk," a flat, horizontal, black and white
disk that is lowered from a rope into the water until it disappears. The depth the disk disappears
from sight is a measure of the transparency of the water. Transparency is affected by the color of
the water and by particles of silt or clay or small plants called algae, and therefore is a measure of
some forms of pollution.
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOI NT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Volunteers Dip In The previous Dip-In events have provided valuable information about water quality. This
(continued) information is available on the Dip-In web site at dipin.kent.edu. The maps made each year have
shown considerable regional differences in transparency. Lakes in the northern parts of the United
States and in Canada typically have the clearest lakes, while lakes in agricultural regions of the
Midwest have some of the lowest transparencies. Transparencies found during past Dip-Ins range
from one inch to more than 65 feet. Almost 1,000 bodies of water have been monitored during the
Dip-In for five or more years. As the data accumulate, it may be possible to see if the transparency
of lakes in the country is changing over time.
Equally valuable has been the information gleaned on the volunteer's perception of water quality.
The Dip-In has found that opinions of water quality vary considerably from region to region. A
person in Minnesota, Maine, or Canada, for example, may think that a lake is degraded if the
transparency is 6 feet, while in other states, a lake with a transparency of only a foot may be
considered beautiful. Carlson suggests that these regional differences mean that people become
accustomed to the quality that they see every day. Most sobering may be the possibility that
everyone grows up thinking that their environment is normal, he notes. Small changes in water
quality may go unnoticed. Fortunately, there are volunteer monitors who record these changes in
water quality year after year.
The volunteers have also changed our perception of what is considered to be a water quality
problem. Typically, those who study lakes think of problems as algal scums and weeds. Although
the volunteers think these biological nuisances are important, a group of human-related problems
are also being found. Volunteers report that noise, boat congestion, rude boaters, and trash are also
important water quality problems. In some states personal watercraft now equal or surpass algae
and weeds as the chief perceived water quality problem. The volunteers' perceptions may not
reflect the attitudes of all users of our waters, but they do remind us that aesthetics and human
interactions are an important part of our environmental consciousness.
[For more information contact the Department of Biological Sciences at Kent State University, Kent, OH
44242. E-mail: dipin@kent.edu; Internet: dipin.kent.edu.]
Volunteers Map Nitrogen Distribution
Stakeholders in the Raccoon River watershed now have another tool in their fight to protect their
drinking water quality. In April 1999 the Des Moines Water Works (DMWW) agency initiated a
volunteer mapping project to provide an overview of nitrogen distribution in the west central Iowa
watershed. The 2.3-million-acre watershed includes 3,600 square miles of prime agricultural land
and is home to 113 communities and 60 sewage treatment plants. The river,a primary source of
water for DMWW customers, routinely exceeded the drinking water standard for nitrate prior to
the project. To comply with the state standard, the DMWW built a large nitrate removal facility.
Nevertheless, the facility was barely adequate during seasonally
high nitrate concentrations and high water demand. Gordon
Brand, Senior Chemist with the DMWW, notes that, "with no
action, further increases in water demand or nitrate
concentration would have jeopardized the health and safety of
thousands of lowans."
The DMWW decided to fight the pollution at the source but
first needed to identify where the nitrate was coming from. With
an EPA Water Quality Cooperative Agreement grant of $75,000
and an additional $3,750 from the DMWW, the group
purchased supplies and gathered volunteers. Several state agencies
and local organizations cooperated with DMWW to recruit and
train volunteers through farm groups, Future Farmers of America
and other interested citizens. During an initial training meeting,
project staff covered procedures, protocols, and logistics and
secured commitment of volunteers for each sample location. The
Collecting samples from a Raccoon River tributary.
10
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
Volunteers Map
Nitrogen Distribution
(continued)
volunteers then collected weekly samples from
sub-watershed streams on points along the rivers to map
nitrate distribution in the entire watershed. They delivered
samples to designated drop-off sites having refrigeration
facilities where a courier then transported samples to a
laboratory for analysis. To keep the volunteers informed of
the results, the lab e-mailed each week's results back to the
drop-off site coordinators for display the following week.
The strategy of mapping
subwatersheds according to nitrate
concentrations in the watershed
depicted an unequal distribution
and provided a basis for focusing
water quality improvement efforts in
subwatersheds contributing the
most nitrogen to surface and
ground water in the watershed.
The organization also kept the public informed. Numerous local newspaper articles described the
activities of the volunteers and the objectives of the study. Water quality information has been
presented at public meetings and summarized in pamphlets. Detailed source water quality
information is posted on the DMWW website and can be accessed through the EPAEMPACT
website at www.epa.gov/empact. This includes a full report on the volunteer sampling project and
a nitrate distribution map of the Raccoon River watershed.
Sampling Results
Results showed that nitrate distribution in the watershed was closely linked to the natural
landscape, agricultural practices, and drainage systems. During the high rainfall period from April
through July, approximately 30,200 metric tons of nitrogen were transported into the Raccoon
River. Most of the nitrate came from the prairie pothole region where the conversion of
denitrifying wetlands to nitrogen-intensive row-crop agriculture allowed excess nitrate to flow
through ground water conduits to rivers and streams. Nitrate concentrations in the prairie pothole
region's tributaries consistently exceeded the water quality standard of 10 mg/L nitrate-N with
peak concentrations ranging from 20 to 30 mg/L. However, nitrate concentrations in tributaries of
hilly watersheds never exceeded the water quality standard. The hilly region's extensive acres of
permanent pasture and cover crops reduced nitrogen loss to ground water and streams.
Addressing the Problem
To help DMWW focus water quality improvement efforts and educate citizens, watershed
stakeholders formed a grassroots organization called the Agriculture Clean Water Alliance
(ACWA). The ACWA consists of 11 agribusiness retailers and cooperatives. The retailers joined to
promote agricultural practices and management tools that effectively use nitrogen resources and
reduce loss to rivers and streams. To serve as an example for the rest of the watershed's citizens, the
ACWA agreed to adopt and adhere to a policy by which soil conditions, including soil
temperature, guided decisions on when to apply nitrogen. And the ACWA continues to sponsor
the monitoring program to focus future activities and track water quality changes caused by the
implementation of better agricultural practices.
Next Steps
The project initially provided DMWW with a picture of how nitrate is distributed throughout the
watershed. Since then, DMWW and ACWA have begun to focus on finding ways to reduce nitrate
in targeted areas to provide the greatest improvement in water quality with the limited resources
available.
The ACWA is co-sponsoring an in-depth study and demonstration project in the West Buttrick
Creek sub-watershed. The project will work with local stakeholders to model source and transport
of nitrogen from farm fields to stream and correlate nutrient management activities to nitrate
losses. This information will identify effective management strategies and facilitate the
development of comprehensive nutrient management plans for farmers in the watershed. DMWW
will continue to develop a nitrate distribution database over a wide range of moisture conditions to
determine whether changes in nutrient management practices are effective and can be
demonstrated and to prioritize candidate watersheds for more intensive monitoring and
management.
[For more information, contact Gordon Brand, DMWW, 412 Fleur Drive, Des Moines, I A 50321. Phone:
(515)283-8761; e-mail: Brand@dmww.com; Internet: www.rrwp.org.]
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
11
-------
Volunteer Wetland Monitoring: An Introduction and Resource Guide
EPA recently announced the release of Volunteer Wetland
Monitoring: An Introduction and Resource Guide. The booklet,
available online atwww.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/monitor/
volmonitor.html, provides an introduction to people's motivations
and methods for monitoring wetlands and includes a multi-page
resource guide to other monitoring handbooks and manuals.
While it is not a methods manual, the guide offers wetland
monitoring program design guidance, most from wetland
monitoring program coordinators across the United States.
[For more information, contact Kathleen Kutschenreuter, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, (4502T), Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 566-1383;
e-mail: kutschenreuter.kathleen@epa.gov. Copies may be
obtained from the Wetlands Helpline at (800) 832-7828 or by
contacting the EPA National Service Center for Environmental
Publications, P.O. Box42419, Cincinnati, OH45242-0419.
Phone: (800) 490-9198, fax: (513) 489-8695; e-mail:
ncepimal@3ne. net]
News from States, Tribes, and Localities
New Mexico Artists: Friends of the Wild Rivers
A New Mexico river conservation group is using art to help restore a local watershed. Founded in
1988, the nonprofit group Amigos Bravos, Spanish for "Friends of the Wild Rivers," holds an
annual Paint-a-thon in Taos, New Mexico, to raise funds for protecting wildlife, improving
habitat, preventing NFS pollution, and educating citizens. The Paint-a-Thon helps Amigos Bravos
achieve its mission of restoring and preserving both the ecological and cultural richness of the Rio
Grande watershed.
Brian Shields, Executive Director of Amigos Bravos, developed the Paint-a-thon after being
inspired by a similar event he saw while visiting a fishing village in Spain. 'The Spanish artists were
participating in a painting competition to raise funds for social causes. Since so many artists living
in the Taos area are also interested in environmental causes, a similar event to sponsor Rio Grande
watershed restoration efforts seemed ideal."
Putting the Brush to Canvas
Each year Amigos Bravos invites local artists to donate their time and materials to help protect the
Rio Grande at the Paint-a-thon. Amigos Bravos designates a stretch along the Rio Grande as the
subject of the art. Most artists set up along the designated stretch, allowing art enthusiasts and the
general public to watch them in action. Local sponsors provide free food and beverages to the
artists throughout the day. By 4 p.m. the artists hand over their finished products for display in a
local gallery until later that evening when Amigos Bravos auctions them off. The funds generated
are used to support Amigos Bravos' Rio Grande River projects.
"Despite its name, the Paint-a-thon is not limited to painters," said Shields. 'The event is open to
all artists. One year we auctioned a poem about the Rio Grande. Last year someone picked reeds by
the river and made a hat for the auction. Every year someone comes up with something new." To
attract diverse artists and bidders, Amigos Bravos advertises the event through radio, local
newspapers and art publications, and the organization's quarterly newsletter. Amigos Bravos also
sends out invitations to their members as well as past auction bidders. The artists help spread the
word to attract other artists and potential bidders.
Now in its fifth year, the Paint-a-thon continues to expand. Approximately 20 artists participated
the first year, compared to almost 70 this year. The proceeds have grown as well; the auction
generated slightly more than $7,000 the first year, compared to more than $13,000 this year.
Although they did not keep records of the number of attendees in previous years, Paint-a-thon
leaders note that attendance has increased. 'The public has taken a great interest," explained
Shields. 'This year the art auction drew more than 200 attendees."
Putting the Dollars to Work
Paint-a-thon funds support a variety of projects. For example, Amigos Bravos is working with
several government and nonprofit organizations to restore riparian areas along Comanche Creek, a
tributary of the Rio Grande. They also work closely with the highway department to reduce
herbicide application along roadways by using other less toxic methods of controlling noxious
Artist captures the Rio Grande
River on canvas for the
Paint-a-thon auction.
12
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
New Mexico Artists: weeds. Several new ideas are cunently in the testing phase, including one that involves extensive
Friends of the planting of native species and another that places thousands of goats along the roadway to eat the
Wild Rivers weeds. Other ongoing projects include assembling an oral history of the Rio Grande for use in
' ' guiding watershed management and restoration, pursuing legal action against a local mining
company which allegedly caused ground water contamination from 320 million tons of rock waste,
and drafting a plan to recover the Rio Grande silvery minnow, which became endangered because
its habitat was lost to land development and poor river management.
[For more information contact Brian Shields or Rachel Conn, Amigos Bravos, P. O. Box 238, Taos, NM
87571. Phone: (505) 758-3874; e-mail: bravos@amigosbravos.org; Internet: www.amigosbravos.org.]
Halifax Harbor: Shining Example of a Clean Marina
At the Halifax Harbor Marina in Daytona Beach, Florida, clean boating is simply good business.
In the fall of 2000 Halifax Harbormaster George Wakefield hoisted the first Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Clean Marina flag on Florida's east coast. Soon after, the
Marine Industries Association of Florida honored the marina with its 2001 Green Marina Award.
To top it off, Volusia County then proclaimed February 22 to be "Halifax Harbor Clean Marina
Day."
The accolades just keep rolling in for this 73-year-old city-owned landmark. Marina DockAgp, a
leading marina business publication, named Halifax Harbor "Marina of the Year." "Halifax Harbor
impressed the judges with its environmental responsibility," says Tinsley Preston, Marina Dock A&
magazine owner. 'The marina has established and maintained productive and mutually beneficial
relationships with the county and state governments."
To earn the Clean Marina flag, the marina implemented environmental
management, environmental quality, and marina services beginning with
| Wakefield's arrival in 1994. Wakefield's programs keep the marina's docks clean
and safe (i.e., no oil or litter), trash containers well-managed, and drinking water
and restrooms clean. Rules and regulations are posted in several visible places for
boaters, and well-trained marina personnel are available to answer questions.
He first created a Vessel Pump-out Program that was recognized by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service as one of the most outstanding programs of its kind in the
Nation. Using a $50,000 grant from the Florida Clean Vessel Program and the
Florida Inland Navigation District, he then installed two new dockside pumping
stations. To make the process even easier for boat owners, he fitted a Boston Whaler (a foam-filled
unsinkable boat) with a tank and suction hose that goes to the docked boats for waste pump-out.
The boat owner does not need to be present for this service, and use of all pump-out stations is
free. He also installed a portable toilet waste disposal station at the marina's boat ramp. With this
convenient pump-out service, boat owners won't be tempted to discharge waste into the harbor or
at sea. In 2000 the marina collected 100,000 gallons of boat wastewater with the pump-out boat
and stations.
To prevent fuel spills, absorbent material covers the fueling docks and no-spill containers hang on the
boat sides. Sewage disposal is illegal, but grey water is not, though discouraged by Halifax Harbor.
The first defense against grey water dumping in the harbor is the presence of 6 bath houses, 35 toilet
fixtures, 20 showers, and 14 washing machines. Grey water is reclaimed at the municipal treatment
plant and used to irrigate the marina's park. Grassy swales serve as storm water retention areas,
allowing water to soak into the ground, leaving no standing water to attract mosquitoes.
Taking the Information to the Community
Wakefield also hosted the first organizational meeting for the FDEP Clean Marina Program, an
initiative in which FDEP works with private organizations, typically marinas, to improve the health
and cleanliness of Florida's waterways. Halifax Harbor was the first of 38 marinas and 5 boat yards in
Florida to earn the FDEP Clean Marina designation. "It is heartening to see the improvement in
water quality brought on by the marina's pollution prevention measures," says Wakefield.
Halifax Harbor Marina in Daytona Beach, Florida
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
13
-------
Halifax Harbor: "HalifaxHarbor has built its reputation on community involvement," says Carrie Stewart, a long-time
Shining Example of a boater who is also a member of the Indian River Lagoon Advisory Board and chair of the Halifax/Indian
Clean Marina River Task Force. 'The marina has been a central part of the environmental community for 14 years,"
(continued) Stewart says. 'These awards show that you can be environmentally aware and meet the needs of the
boating community in a good way. Good things do happen when people get together."
[Parts of this article were excerpted from "Indian River Lagoon Update," a publication of St. Johns River
Water Management District. For more information, contact George Wakefield at (386) 671-3607 or via
e-mail at phillipsmarc@:i.daytona-bech.fl. us, or Jan Delaney, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, (850)488-5757, extension 178, or via e-mail at Jan.delaney@Jep.state.fl.us.]
Notes on Watershed Management
Storm Water Programs Reach Out to the Public
Storm water management is not a new concept. According to the 1998 National Water Quality
Inventory, 11 percent of impaired rivers, 12 percent of impaired lake acres, and 28 percent of
impaired estuaries are affected by urban/suburban storm water runoff. To combat the problem,
EPA set rules establishing Phase I of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System storm
water program in 1990 to address storm water runoff from medium and large municipal separate
storm sewer systems (MS4s) that serve populations of 100,000 or greater, construction activity
disturbing 5 acres of land or greater, and 10 categories of industrial activity.
The Phase II regulations, finalized in 1999, expanded Phase I by adding permit requirements for
operators of small MS4s in urbanized areas (a residential population of at least 50,000 and an overall
population density of 1,000 people per square mile) and operators of small construction sites
(between 1 and 5 acres). The goal of Phase II is to further reduce impacts to water quality and aquatic
habitat by implementing controls on the previously unregulated sources of storm water discharges
that could cause water pollution. Operators must design their storm water
programs to reduce pollution to the maximum extent practicable, protect
water quality, and meet CWA requirements a tall order, indeed.
Minimum Control Measures
for MS4s
Public Education and Outreach
Public Participation/ Involvement
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Construction Site Runoff Control
Post-construction Runoff Control
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
To do this, municipalities will have to develop and implement best
management practices to satisfy each of six minimum control measures (see
box). Two of the most important measures require public education and
involvement. Educating the public on storm water pollution and specifically
the Phase II program will create much needed awareness and involvement.
Involving the public during the development of storm water management
plans will gain support, increase awareness of storm water runoff and the
problems it causes, and help make it easier to adopt and implement the
plans once finalized.
Stakeholders Make the Job Easier
The City of Franklin has been struggling with storm water issues for years. Rapid urban growth
and development increased impervious surfaces, significantly increasing sediment runoff that
ended up in the Harpeth River. In 1999 city leaders began developing a storm water management
plan to address these issues. An integral part of their process included the creation of a storm water
management task force charged with ensuring that the plan met all six of the minium control
measures for Phase II, while at the same time meeting specific environmental, political, and
socioeconomic needs of the city. The task force consisted of residents, business owners, developers,
members of environmental organizations, and other stakeholders. The group's storm water
management plan is expected to receive city leader approval this year. This accomplishment helps
the group reach their immediate goal while fulfilling the Phase II requirements for public outreach
and involvement at the same time.
Other areas of the country have taken a statewide approach to storm water management. With
more than 61 percent of the state's population potentially affected by Phase II, a statewide
approach made sense for Pennsylvania. To develop an effective, streamlined statewide Phase II
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
Storm Water
Programs Reach Out
to the Public
(continued)
storm water program, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)
focused on obtaining public input by conducting outreach and collecting information that could
help develop the program.
Through briefings, weekly written updates, e-mail dialogues, and stakeholder meetings, PA DEP
made a concerted effort to keep their widely dispersed stakeholder group up-to-date, informed, and
in motion. In addition, two brainstorming sessions and outreach meetings held at various locations
across the state, educated MS4 operators on the Phase II program and gave PA DEP a better
understanding of the challenges facing the operators and what they felt would make an effective
storm water program.
Using information gathered from the stakeholders, PA DEP developed a two-option approach to
permitting allowing permittees in the state to comply with Phase II by implementing a
pre-approved storm water management program or choosing to design their own program using
some (or none) of the components in the pre-approved program. Dedicated stakeholder involvement
gave MS4 operators the flexibility to implement what works best for them. In addition, the
stakeholders agreed the minimum measure for public outreach and education would be accomplished
more effectively through a statewide effort, rather than on a town-by-town basis. PA DEP is now
considering developing outreach materials for MS4s to distribute in their local communities.
Education is the Key
Getting the stakeholders involved in the process is important, but it can be an exercise in futility if
they do not fully understand the issues they have been asked to address and comment on. That's
where storm water education and outreach become a critical part of the process. There are
hundreds of existing storm water education programs, but the best programs are the ones that are
well planned. Planning consists of defining goals and objectives of the outreach materials or
campaign, developing a message, identifying and understanding the target audiences, and
formatting and distributing the materials appropriately for the message and the audience.
The City of San Diego's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program defined its goal as improving
the quality of San Diego's recreational waters and reducing beach postings and closures resulting
from contamination by 50 percent. To that end, program staff developed a campaign called
'Think Blue," a comprehensive educational effort designed to generate awareness and action
among residents to prevent storm drain pollution. The Think Blue program produces a kit
consisting of an informational brochure and a discount card to be used in conjunction with
program sponsors. As one of the corporate sponsors of the program, KGTV Channel 10's
weatherman is the campaign spokesperson. The station has supported the campaign through three
public service announcements (PSAs). One of the PSAs titled 'Think Blue: Roads to Beaches"
recently won four Emmy Awards on June 15, 2002. The three PSAs currently air on San Diego
area radio and television stations and can be viewed from the Think Blue web site
(www.thinkbluesd.org) along with fact sheets, articles, and more.
The method used to convey information can make the difference between what people remember
and what they don't. A good example is Sammy Salmon, Storm Water Pollution Expert. Sammy
serves as the memorable storm water mascot for the City of Sacramento. Developed by Tom
Romano and Lee Pitt of local radio station KFBK, Sammy promotes storm water pollution
prevention in a cute and humorous way through radio and television advertisements. The radio
spots and audio from the television commercial can be downloaded from the web site at
www.sacstormwater.org/what/sammy/sammy.htm. Pinellas County, Florida, also uses a storm
water awareness mascot called M. Phibian. This life-size mascot visits local schools and community
events to spread the word about storm water runoff.
Local participation increases when the local government is supportive and proactive. The City of
Sacramento hosts landscaping and water-related workshops for homeowners, including "Protect
Your Local Creeks and Streams Learn the Basics of Citizen Monitoring" to get residents
interested and active in environmental protection. Sacramento also developed a volunteer storm
drain stenciling program and a storm water community action grant program to provide a means
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
15
-------
Storm Water for the citizens to become active. And, to educate children and their parents, the city created a
Programs Reach Out storm water pollution prevention display at the Sacramento Zoo and offers classroom presentations
to the Public for eiementarv middle, and high school students.
(continued)
The City of Durham, North Carolina, is also proactive and supportive of its residents' needs. The
city manages a storm water hotline to report illicit discharges. The hotline's promotional
refrigerator magnet shows the cartoon character Snidley Whiplash dumping toxic chemicals into a
catch basin and a worried fish phoning city storm water staff. Calls to the hotline have increased
after each promotion, and the magnets helped make the hotline a major part of the program's
success in finding and eliminating sources of pollution.
Adding It All Up
A successful storm water public education and involvement program cannot be developed for free,
but it doesn't have to cost a fortune either. According to a 1998 EPA estimate, a program for a
town with a population of 100,000 will cost between $21,000 and $54,000 for start-up and
ongoing expenses. When combined with the costs of the other four minimum control measures,
the cost for a comprehensive storm water program quickly gains a price tag ranging from $139,000
to $783,000.
Fortunately, costs can be reduced in a number of ways. Working with nearby localities to develop a
multijurisdictional storm water education plan will help spread the cost of the program over
multiple communities. Educational materials and outreach campaigns very easily lend themselves
to meeting the needs of more than one community. Besides substantially reducing implementing
costs, working jointly helps ensure that educational messages will be more consistent across
watersheds. Municipalities might also present the community with varying levels of service and
associated costs to get their input. When evaluating various funding alternatives, municipalities
should examine the range of realistic funding options available and design a probable funding mix
for their own storm water program.
As communities learn more about storm water issues and the Phase II storm water program, they
will naturally become more involved in the process. If municipalities carefully choose outreach
materials and public involvement methods, they will be on the road to meeting the requirement for
the remaining four minimum control measures for Phase II. Open houses, block parties, speakers'
bureaus, web sites, listservers, television and radio PSAs, and stakeholder advisory work groups all
help to increase participation in developing locally supported storm water solutions.
[For more information on EPA's Storm Water program, contact Wendy Bell, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, (4203M), Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 564-0746;
e-mail: bell.wendy@epa.gov; Internet: cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swphase2.cfm.]
New Program Helps Developers Build Better
Both developers and environmental groups are applauding a new program designed to reduce the
environmental impacts of residential and commercial construction in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Launched in December 2001, Builders for the Bay enables and encourages area
watershed developers to voluntarily adopt environmentally friendly site design principles to govern
land development and management. Because many existing zoning ordinances and subdivision
codes prevent the implementation of this type of environmentally friendly site design, Builders for
the Bay is working closely with local stakeholders to identify where changes in local regulations are
needed. The program is based on similar successful efforts undertaken in Frederick County,
Maryland and in several Virginia communities.
Taking the Program into the Bay Watershed
The program's organizers, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay (ACB), Center for Watershed
Protection (CWP), and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), plan to implement
Builders for the Bay in at least 12 jurisdictions in the Bay watershed over the next two years. The
ACB, CWP, and NAHB are currently selecting six jurisdictions for program implementation in
16
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
New Program Helps
Developers Build
Better
(continued)
the first year. Some areas under consideration are Harford County, Maryland; York and Lancaster
Counties, Pennsylvania; and James City County, Virginia. Final selection is anticipated this fell.
To be selected, a potential Builders for the Bay community must meet this certain criteria. First, a
local entity must be willing to champion the effort at the local level. "We look for someone,
whether a local environmental group or a developer, who steps forward and says 'this would be
great for our area'," explains David Bancroft, Director of the ACB. The organizers then work with
the local groups to build consensus between interested parties and ensure that adequate local
support exists. Finally, the organizers work with the groups to help them raise the $40,000 to
$50,000 needed to support program implementation in their area. The funds support meeting
sites, materials for workshops, and time and travel of the CWP and ACB facilitators. "We prefer
that most of the money be raised locally to ensure that the community has a significant investment
in the project's success," noted Bancroft. The CWP and ACB have received several grants from
various sources to fund their initial selection and implementation efforts.
The 22 site design principles promoted by the
Builders for the Bay were originally developed in
1998 by the Center for Watershed Protection as
part of its 1998 National Site Planning Roundtable
project. The principles show planners, developers, |
and local officials how changes in development
designs can reduce impervious cover, conserve
natural areas, and prevent storm water pollution.
The principles also serve as a benchmark to help
localities identify how existing ordinances need
modification to allow this type of development. The |
site design principles recommend many changes
to the typical development design, including:
« Shorter, narrower streets
« Fewer and smaller cul-de-sacs
« Smaller parking lots
» Increased stormwater treatment practices
« More community open space
« Flexible sidewalk standards
« Increased vegetated buffers
» Enhanced native vegetation
» Limited clearing and grading.
The site design principles address three primary
areas: residential streets and parking lots (habitat
for cars), lot development (habitat for people), and |
conservation of natural areas (habitat for nature).
Each is addressed in greater detail on the CWP
web site (www.cwp.org).
After community selection and fundraising, the CWP and ACB host a
series of consensus-building workshops. The facilitators teach
community representatives about site design principles and help them
identify which local codes and ordinances prohibit or impede
implementation. Because many local codes and ordinances are so
complex, the review process can require multiple meetings and many
months to complete. After completion of the review effort, the
participants develop a report outlining how well the site design
principles could be applied in their locality. The report will identify
local building codes that need modification and existing laws and
ordinances requiring better enforcement for environmental quality.
Walk the Walk
Although the final report will offer a road map to local environmental
resource protection groups, communities will be required to provide
adequate financial and human resources to fully implement the
recommendations and change codes when necessary. "We hope that
the NAHB and its local affiliates will take the lead in changing
existing codes that discourage environmentally friendly building
practices. Once the codes are changed, the communities must then
work to ensure that local developers actually adapt and apply the new
site design principles," explained Hye Yeong Kwon with the CWP.
Until that happens, the community partners will work to educate and
encourage local developers to adopt site design principles permitted
by existing codes.
For more information about workshop content and to see an example
of a finished report, see Recommended Model Development Principles
for Frederick County, Maryland, available for download on the CWP
web site (www.cwp.org/builders_for_bay.htm) under the heading
"Frederick County Consensus Agreement."
[For more information contact David Bancroft, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, 6600 York Road,
Baltimore, MD 21212. Phone: (410) 377-6270; e-mail: dbancron@dcb-online.org. Also contact Hye Yeong
Kwon, Center for Watershed Protection, 8391 Main Street, Ellicott City, MD 21043. Phone: (410)
461-8323; e-mail: hyk@swp.org', Internet: www.cwp.org.]
Working to Manage Watersheds Locally
In recent years, many local entities have embraced the watershed approach to manage waters in
their jurisdictions. While different watershed approaches may ultimately have different objectives
(i.e., protection or restoration), most contain similar core elements resulting in effective
implementation. EPA, in consultation with other partners (e.g., U.S. Department of Agriculture),
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
17
-------
Working to Manage
Watersheds Locally
(continued)
is currently developing the minimum
elements of effective watershed
management plans that will help guide
local communities through the
watershed management process. The
process, considered "program neutral,"
enables groups to develop a plan
independently of identified funding
source programs. With a completed
plan, the groups work with state and
federal agencies to match their needs
with available funding programs. This
process explores the many facets of
watershed management and explains
why each is important to a successful
watershed management program.
What is Watershed Management?
Watershed management is largely a process of
working with people to solve their natural resource and
environmental problems while sustaining or improving
their individual and community well-being. People must |
become involved in the process to ensure it meets
their needs. Through locally led watershed partnership
efforts, government agencies can focus their efforts on
working with private and public partners to solve
problems rather than run programs. While one can
regulate the watershed management process, one
cannot effectively regulate local leadership and
ownership. Clearly, watershed management requires
the willing participation by all stakeholders through a
collaborative approach.
Defining the Elements
EPA and its partners have identified the minimum elements that should comprise an effective
watershed plan. In general, these elements include:
Watershed characterization assessment of the natural resource and environmental
conditions and an identification of problem sources and areas for treatment using existing
data;
Planning and prioritization goal identification and development of a process for the
plan, including an implementation schedule and interim measurable milestones;
Coordination and outreach identification of implementation mechanisms, including
public/private partners, technical and financial resources, and information and education
components; and
Evaluation description of the program's evaluation for goal attainment including a
monitoring component.
A watershed plan following this framework may be designed to achieve any number of goals,
including protection or restoration goals, soil conservation or non-aquatic habitat preservation
goals, or water quality management goals.
Selecting the Elements
Starting with this framework, entities can build in more specific levels of detail as necessary to
achieve their watershed-specific goals. For example, if the local entity plans to implement a total
maximum daily load (TMDL), the elements of the watershed plan will need to successfully
develop, implement, and track specific progress for achieving the load and wasteload allocations in
the TMDL. Additional elements could include, for example, identification of approved load and
wasteload allocations in the TMDL, specific schedules for permit issuance or re-issuance, and
nonpoint source management measures that will be needed to achieve the load allocations.
While the components and objectives of each watershed plan may vary, there is considerable overlap
in the overall watershed planning framework. These commonalities are identified in the broader set of
elements outlined above. By adopting this watershed framework, watershed activities will be more
readily adaptable to other activities occurring in the same watershed. This provides an increased
opportunity for leveraging funding and resources and for coordinating activities effectively.
Making it Work
Stakeholder participation is crucial. Building a consensus of stakeholders will provide a foundation
to support behavioral change within the watershed. People living, working, and owning land in the
watershed must make the right short- and long-term decisions to protect and restore water quality.
The challenge is to balance the short-term demands for day-to-day economics with long-term
18
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
Working to Manage
Watersheds Locally
(continued)
sustainability of a quality environment. In most situations this will require changing stakeholders'
perceptions and behavior. Social capacity building efforts consist of outreach, education, and
information efforts. If successful, they move stakeholders through various stages of awareness,
knowledge, understanding, ability, and desire to become active. They also provide support to
ensure a sustained behavioral change. The type of effort and expected response vary during
different stages of implementation.
Adaptive management is a key requirement for the process to work. Adaptive management allows
adjustments in the management direction as new information becomes available. The combination
of natural variability in the hydrologic cycle and the uncertainty associated with the off-site impact
of pollution controls (both point and nonpoint) requires that watershed managers be flexible
enough to modify implementation approaches based on progress and available information.
Combinations of watershed characteristics, sources of pollutants, and management approaches are
unique, and therefore, management efforts may not proceed
exactly as planned. Adaptive management does not mean that
the watershed's water quality goals would be modified based
upon lack of progress, but that the results would be used to
modify management policies, strategies, practices, and
operation and maintenance procedures to reach goals.
New Watershed Project
Management Guide
The recently released Watershed Project Management Guide
by Thomas E. Davenport presents a four-phase approach to
watershed management based on a collaborative process
that responds to common needs and goals. The
recommended process consists of a series of four basic
phases: Assessment, Planning, Implementation, and
Evaluation. The four-phase approach helps watershed
practitioners develop a plan consistent with the recently
released USDA-EPA Watershed Management Planning and
Implementation Process guidance. The process can be used
to implement a management strategy to meet load allocations
required by an approved TMDL, goals of a source water
protection plan, USDA programs (i.e., Environmental Quality
Incentive Program), or section 319 projects. To order, visit the
website www.crcpress.com or call (800) 272-7737.
Conducting an effective monitoring and assessment effort is
another key element in planning, implementing, and adapting
management practices. Monitoring and assessment efforts
enable local partnerships to possess credible data and
information to make sound decisions, measure progress
toward meeting conservation and environmental goals, and
provide crucial information for guiding decisions through the
adaptive management cycle. Monitoring and assessment
before and during the project identifies baseline conditions
and the likelihood of goal attainment. If the results show a
potential problem, mid-course adjustments in the
management approach can be made.
Work in Progress
EPA welcomes comments and recommendations on the general elements of effective watershed
management planning via e-mail to Stacie Craddock, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, at craddock.stacie(a£pa.gov.
Agricultural Notes
Creating the Monterey Bay Farmers' Clean Water Initiative
In northern California a community is coming together to protect Monterey Bay. Agricultural
organizations and local watershed stakeholders are leading a two-year pilot project called the Pajaro
Valley Project which is striving to protect the Bay's water quality while maintaining the region's
economic viability. The pilot project is the first step in the development of a much larger, watershed-
wide program that will one day be known as the Monterey Bay Farmers' Clean Water Initiative.
The Pajaro Valley Pilot Project is an incentive-based program for agricultural producers in the
large Pajaro River watershed, which encompasses four counties and makes up nearly one-sixth of
the Monterey Bay watershed. The project's stakeholders agricultural producers and concerned
citizens hope that the project will demonstrate that those depending on the agricultural and
urban area surrounding the Bay (1) can benefit from environmental stewardship, and (2) conduct a
successful program.
The agricultural producers are encouraged to highlight their regional identity and implement
environmentally sensitive management practices to provide better marketing opportunities and
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
19
-------
Creating the
Monterey Bay
Farmers' Clean
Water Initiative
(continued)
Farmers enrolled in the pilot
project can use this label when
packaging their goods.
Consumers can take pride in
knowing their purchases were
produced with environmentally
sound practices.
improve relations between regulators and environmental groups. Stakeholders identified and
described a set of management practices they believe to be the soundest method for successful
farming and environmental stewardship for the region. Project staff work with the participating
producers to develop a sustainable program for area farmers.
How Did it Begin?
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) was formed by the stakeholders and is comprised of
farmers, regulators, representatives of the agricultural and environmental management interests,
and community organizations. Two nonprofit agencies, AG Innovations Network and
Community Alliance with Family Farmers, manage and staff the program, and the California State
Water Resources Control Board funds it. Project staff help landowners and farmers develop and
implement water quality plans using approved water quality protection and management practices.
The staff is also working to build institutional and permanent funding support from state and local
agencies and private sources to ensure the pilot project will expand throughout the watershed.
Staff also market the Fields to Oceans label, a compelling promotional message for participating
farmers to use throughout the Bay watershed. A unique mark of excellence in environmental
stewardship, the Fields to Oceans label, shows the farmer's desire to protect the Monterey Bay.
When project staff determine a farmer has reached the program's management goals, the farmer is
encouraged to post the label in his fields and use it on product packaging. Once on products, the
label encourages consumers to play a part in the protection of the Bay by purchasing
environmentally protective items. The goods are sold as superior products with minimum
environmental risk as a result of the environmental and health conscious practices used in product
development and production. The farmer benefits from the increased sales of the
environmentally-protective product.
What Do the Farmers Do?
Optimum water quality protection practices identified by the stakeholders are outlined in a water
quality protection practices manual provided by the project staff and TAG. Practices include
management initiatives that should be adopted by producers to control the sediment, nutrients,
and pesticides, along with irrigation management practices to manage the water supply to the
crops. The manual is divided into four sections based on the farmer's progress throughout the
two-year program.
The first section includes a beneficial rating system with questions and answers that address water
quality management practices. The manual's second section provides background educational
materials, giving the reader more information about the topics addressed during the question and
answer section. The third section provides summary and evaluation sheets that farmers can use to
record their scores from the question and answer section. The fourth section describes the program
certification process for the farm.
The farmer begins by reading the detailed descriptions in the beneficial rating system and then
rates the practices on the farm from one to four (four being the best). To develop an implementa-
tion plan, the farmer then answers several questions to determine the most appropriate practices for
his or her farm. Separate scores generated for each of the four management sections (sediment,
nutrients, pesticides, and irrigation) are recorded on summary sheets. The scores from each
management section are added and divided by the number of issues, yielding a grade point average
(GPA) for each section. The TAC is responsible for working with the farmers to help them achieve
an acceptable GPA for each management section. With acceptable GPAs in each section, the
farmer's program will be approved, thereby allowing the farmer to use the Fields to Ocean label.
What Happens Next?
Last summer, initial enrollees completed the self-assessment outlined in the water quality
protection practices manual. The group's next step is to implement additional practices that will
help each reach the desired GPA. The regional promotional strategy to provide incentives for both
production and consumer action will be an ongoing effort. As the project staff and TAC develop
20
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
Creating the and implement the goals set forth in the pilot project, the farmers currently participating will be
Monterey Bay their best source of information and experience. The success of the current project will eventually
Farmers' Clean ^^ ^ the foundation for the Monterey Bay Farmers' Clean Water Initiative.
Water Initiative
(continued) ^or more information contact Michael Dimock, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, 1055 West
College Avenue, #136, Santa Rosa, CA 95401. Phone: (707) 528-2222; Internet: www.pvpilot.org]
Nutrient Trading Tools for Cleaner Water
Around the country local watersheds are developing water quality trading programs for pollutant
control. EPA supports these programs on the basis that water quality goals can be achieved more
efficiently and cost-effectively while providing other benefits. The primary focus of water quality
trading is on sediment and nutrients, though other pollutants should not be ruled out. In May
2002 EPA proposed a new trading policy covering water quality trading in unimpaired waters, in
impaired waters prior to Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development, and in waters with
an established TMDL. Many nutrient trading programs and assistance groups have formed to curb
nutrient runoff from agricultural operations.
Trading Means Sharing the Load
Nutrient trading is a market-based approach of transferring nutrient reduction credits between
buyers and sellers. For example, an industrial plant releasing an overabundance of phosphorus into
the local waterways and a farmer working to control the phosphorus runoff from his dairy
operation could trade nutrient reduction credits. The plant would purchase reduction credits from
the farmer when it could not cover the cost of reducing nutrient loading, and the farmer could
implement new management measures to continue reducing phosphorus on his property with the
additional funding.
While some elements of trading strategies are the same nationwide, it is difficult to develop a
blanket strategy as the mixed-use watersheds in the United States vary greatly in size and pollutant
discharges. Also, trades cannot be made simply to rid an entity of responsibility for a pollutant, as
each trade must be a cost-effective way of reaching a water quality goal or even allowing for better
water quality production. Nutrient trading also spotlights specific NPS pollution issues for
stakeholders as trading relationships develop. In a watershed, where a few entities want to buy
reduction credits and others want to sell, buyers and sellers may pair up to focus on specific
pollutants to be controlled and thus create a positive financial gain for all parties.
Getting the Word Out on Nutrient Trading
Since the idea of nutrient trading was posed in the mid-1990s, projects have developed with state
funding throughout the United States. Pilot projects help stakeholders gain a better understanding
of the terms and conditions that may be placed on nutrient trading. Lessons learned from the pilot
projects allow for investigation of barriers erected by current policy and regulations, as well as
development of a general comprehension of the willingness of farmers and industries to develop
trading partnerships.
The Great Lakes Trading Network (GLTN), an organization dedicated to the development of
market-based incentive programs, has become a national clearinghouse and forum for trading
projects and partnerships. Members of the network representing a wide variety of projects across
the country actively participate in the forum.
GLTN's goals include:
Obtain, generate, evaluate, and disseminate information on trading programs;
Support regional and watershed-based trading initiatives;
Increase public awareness and support for trading; and
Facilitate implementation of programs established by state and federal environmental
regulations.
The GLTN meets its goals through regular conference calls, presentations, an interactive website,
and collaborations with other agencies, institutions, and organizations.
SEPTEMBER 2002, ISSUE #69 NONPOI NT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 21
-------
Nutrient Trading
Tools for Cleaner
Trading Partnerships
Over the last two years^ the world Resources Institute has developed NutrientNet
(www.nutrientnet.org), a primer for the agricultural, economic, and environmental influences on
the development of trading partnerships in a given watershed. NutrientNet encourages nitrogen
trading, recommends water quality improvements, and works to improve water quality in
watersheds with existing trading partnerships. NutrientNet serves many of the necessary programs
that must be developed before nutrient trading is generally accepted by stakeholders in a
watershed. The web site offers tools for those developing partnerships that
estimate the effectiveness of potential trades,
provide cost-effective ways to do potential trades,
allow potential traders to be identified,
act as a central location that lists loads and types of trades, and
increase the transparency of the trading process.
Worksheets are posted on the web site for potential buyers and sellers to conduct economic studies
for a potential trading program. The conclusions outline many factors that must be considered in
developing a successful trade, including costs of the transaction to both buyer and seller,
dependability of NFS load reduction activities, and the general public's acceptance of trading. A
major hurdle is the creation of a recording clearinghouse that would allow all credits to be
developed in the same manner. It is also necessary to keep records so that stakeholders can identify
where trading partnerships have formed.
NutrientNet simplifies initiating and developing trading partnerships. The web site provides
worksheets for farmers and point source entities to describe credits available for sale or purchase.
The farmer identifies available options for nutrient load reduction by studying the cost of runoff
reduction and cost of the credits and then calculating the number of credits that are available to
sell. The farmer can list credits and location information on the web site and complete the trade
when a point source discharger with complementary needs is located within the same watershed.
The web site also records and stores this information in a database.
Nutrient trading can economically benefit multiple polluters in a watershed while simultaneously
protecting and improving water quality for the future. Trading also fosters relationships between
the people who use the watershed for various reasons. With EPA's new TMDL trading policy and
the move toward public acceptance, nutrient trading will become an important part of the future
of watershed protection.
[For more information, contact Patricia Zurita, World Resources Institute, 10 G Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20002. Phone: (202) 729-7673; e-mail: pzurita@wri.org.]
Rice Farmers Hold Winter Water on Fields for Triple Win
Rice farmers are solving the problem of soil erosion by holding water on their fields all winter. James
MacLellan, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality and project manager for the
demonstration project, says, "In the past, farmers used to till their fields after harvest and leave them
bare all winter. With all the rain we get in the winter and spring, that translated into a lot of soil
erosion." Water ran off the fields, eroding soil and depositing sediment in the ditches and streams. A
dike/road system makes each field a shallow pond when it rains, keeping the water on the fields.
MacLellan explains, "Many of the farmers have gone to precision land leveling with a dike/road
around the field. The land is leveled until it has very little grade. This assists the farming, but it also
means the fields would become shallow ponds without a drain outlet (we have a lot of clay soils)."
To regulate the field water, farmers install a pipe and riser system to hold the appropriate amount
of water and drain it during planting or harvest. The pipe, similar to a 55-gallon drum cut in half
lengthwise, stands on one end at the side of a dike. A drain pipe in the bottom carries water from
the drum through the dike to a ditch outside. To keep water on the field, the open side of the
drum is fitted with risers (boards) inserted into slots at the side of the drum. In the spring, a month
22
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
Here is a head-on view of a pipe against the dike
around a rice field. No boards are in view.
In the center is a pipe in a flooded rice field. One
of the boards is propped against the back of the or ^ before planting, the farmers remove the boards and drain the fields. By
pl-e' controlling water releases, sediment loading from erosion from the ditches and
along stream banks decreases.
To help farmers purchase and maintain the system, Ducks Unlimited partnered
with several funding agencies to form the Mississippi Partners Winter Water
Management Project. With a section 319 grant of $500,000 from EPA,
$186,000 from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, and
$200,000 from Ducks Unlimited, the Project funded almost 100 pipes with
water control structures for farmers over the past year. These pipes have been
installed in agricultural grounds to hold winter water and improve water quality
in the Bogue Phalia and Coldwater River Watersheds.
Tom Willis, Mississippi Project Biologist for Ducks Unlimited, completed the first
of a 3-year paired study of sediment held on the fields through this practice. 'This
practice reduces sediments significantly. This has a good impact on water quality
and creates more winter water fowl habitat," said Willis. From December 2001 to
February 2002, Willis collected runoff water samples from paired fields (pipe
versus no pipe) and sent the samples to Mississippi State University for sediment
analysis. The first year data indicated a 95 percent reduction in sediment loss in
fields with water control structures in December, a 35 percent reduction in January,
and a 42 percent reduction in February when compared to those without
structures. These reductions encouraged other farmers to participate.
MacLellan noted, 'The demonstration project is strictly voluntary, but the practice
may help the region meet its Total Maximum Daily Load requirement. Farmers do
it because this is a way to share the cost of the pipe rather than them having to pay
for everything out of their own pocket. When you talk about a farmer having 1,000
acres and needing to put in 5 or 15 or more pipes at $250-$500 a pipe, it adds up."
Winter Water Testimonials
Mississippi farmer Charlie Heinsz saves time, money, and topsoil by holding winter rain on his rice
fields. In addition, the temporary wetland attracts ducks for him to hunt. He hails from five
generations of rice farmers in Mississippi and, originally, Louisiana. His grandfather installed pipes
and risers to control water, but the cost began to become an impediment. With the help of Ducks
Unlimited, he now levels more fields and installs pipes every year. "Any time I can stop erosion
and save work, it just makes sense," notes Heinsz. 'The water covers the straw after harvest and
prevents weeds from growing. In the spring, the straw has disappeared and I do not have to work
the fields before planting again."
Another Mississippi rice farmer, Hugh Campbell, says, 'The pipes and risers make all the
difference in the world. The biggest plum is the erosion factor. With the pipes and risers, the soil
and the chemicals stay in the field. Previously, the fields drained directly into the ditches, the silt
built up, and the ditches had to be cleaned out."
[For more information, contact James MacLellan, Mississippi State Department of Environmental Quality,
P.O. Box 10385, Jackson, MS39289. Phone: (601) 961-5061; e-mail:
James_MacLellan@deq.state.ms.us. Also contact Tom Willis, Ducks Unliminted, 2001 South Commerce
Street, Suite G, Grenada, MS38901. Phone: (662)226-6880; e-mail: twillis@ducks.org.]
Technical Notes
Observations on Technical Achievability in TMDL Development
By Bruce Cleland, America's Clean Water Foundation
A strength of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) program is its ability to support development
of information-based water quality management strategies. If done properly, a TMDL can inform,
empower, and energize citizens, local communities, and states to improve water quality at the local
watershed level. The basic information derived from a sound TMDL can liberate the creative
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
23
-------
Observations on energies of those most likely to benefit from reduced pollutant loadings to their own waters (Tracy
Technical Mehcm, November 2001). With this in mind, tools are needed that promote effective
Achievability in communication between TMDL developers and those responsible for implementing actions that
v ,. will lead to measurable water quality improvements. The TMDL process raises many issues such as
reasonable assurance, trading, and adaptive management, in which technical considerations
intersect with policy issues. As a result, technical achievability of pollution control practices has
received an increasing amount of attention over the past several years. With the large number of
TMDLsthat must be completed, limited resources, and the complex, interrelated nature of water
programs, the "two Ps" are critical to success: practical approaches and partnerships.
Two issues that often confront TMDL developers include methods to assess technical achievability
and the level of precision needed to develop load reduction estimates. Watershed analysis uses a
bottom-up approach towards TMDL development as one way to establish a meaningful,
value-added framework that links water quality concerns with proposed solutions. TMDL
development using a bottom-up approach takes advantage of networks of programs and authorities
across jurisdictional lines. Information on management measures related to both source control
and delivery reduction methods can be incorporated into the allocation part of TMDL
development. An important key to the success of the TMDL program is building on linkages to
other programs, such as nonpoint source management. Many successful efforts to develop TMDLs
have, for example, involved the section 319 program.
Basing a TMDL on an Achievability Analysis
An example from the Pacific Northwest illustrates one way in which technical achievability was
considered in TMDL development. Specifically, the Simpson Northwest Timberlands TMDL
established by the State of Washington was developed using an achievability analysis. The
Simpson TMDL is intended to address fisheries concerns for several waters located on land owned
by Simpson Timber Company. The TMDL is designed to address water quality impairments
caused by surface water temperature increases from excessive heat and sediment, which were
reducing the quality of rearing habitat for coho salmon and steelhead trout.
The first step for developing TMDLs, under the current regulatory framework, is identification of
a loading capacity (i.e., the greatest amount of pollutant loading that a water can receive without
violating water quality standards). The loading capacity provides a measure to determine the
amount of pollutant reduction needed to bring a water into compliance with water quality
standards. Within the Simpson TMDL, the loading capacity for heat (or solar radiation) is based
on shade levels in the riparian corridor needed to meet water quality standards for temperature.
Similarly, the Simpson TMDL based the loading capacity for sediment on the volume delivered to
stream systems through various erosion processes.
Once a loading capacity has been identified, allocations are assigned to contributing sources. The
Simpson TMDL derived allocations using effective shade and sediment delivery targets. These
targets were based on an analysis of expected results from implementing an array of management
measures (e.g., riparian conservation strategies, improved road management, unstable slope
protection, and a wetlands conservation program) that were needed to address processes that
influence water temperature. Effective shade allocations were based on achievability estimates using
information about each channel class (e.g., drainage area, active channel width, range of flows,
etc.), combined with characteristics of mature riparian vegetation (i.e., vegetative density and
height) and buffer widths. This approach leads to shade targets that recognize the variability in
channel and riparian characteristics that occur across the landscape. Similarly, sediment delivery
allocations were based on estimates of the percent of the load that could be controlled through
implementation of various management practices. Thus, the measures were linked to specific
source areas and to appropriate actions needed to solve identified water quality problems. This
bottom-up approach gives major consideration to the actions that can be implemented. Any gaps
can then be readily identified and filled.
24 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
Observations on
Technical
Achievability in
TMDL Development
(continued)
Tools for Assessing Technical Achievability
Traditional approaches toward TMDL development tend to focus on targeting a single value,
which typically depends on a water quality criterion and some design flow. The single number
concept does not work well when dealing with impairments caused by nonpoint source pollutant
inputs. One of the more important concerns regarding nonpoint sources is variability in stream
flows, which cause different loading mechanisms to dominate under different flow regimes.
Because of the wide range of variability that can occur in stream flows, hydrologists have long been
interested in knowing the percentage of days in a year when given flows occur. Generally, the
percentage of time during which specified flows are equaled or exceeded may be compiled in the
form of a flow duration curve. This is a cumulative frequency curve of flow quantities without
regard to chronology of occurrence (Leopold, 1994). Duration curves may express daily, weekly, or
monthly average flows. The most common form of the flow duration curve is the percentage of
days in a year the mean daily flow is equaled or exceeded.
Because nonpoint source pollution is often driven by runoff events, TMDL development should
consider factors that ensure adequate water quality across a range of flow conditions. In keeping
with this idea, Kansas derived a simple TMDL development method based on duration curves,
which avoids constraints associated with using a single flow number. Kansas has been using load
duration curves for the past several years as a key part of the TMDL development process. The
initial focus in Kansas was to provide a way to identify whether point or nonpoint sources are the
major contributors to water quality problems. The expanded use of flow duration curves has since
demonstrated its utility as a targeting tool. In particular, load duration curves can add value to the
TMDL process by identifying targeted participants (e.g., NPDES permitees) at critical flow
conditions, targeted programs (e.g., Conservation Reserve Program), targeted activities (e.g.,
conservation tillage or contour farming), and targeted areas (e.g., bank stabilization projects).
Flow duration curve analysis identifies intervals, which can be used as a general indicator of
hydrologic condition (i.e., wet versus dry, and to what degree). This indicator can help point problem
solution discussions towards relevant watershed processes, important contributing areas, and key
delivery mechanisms. These are all important considerations when identifying those controls that
might be most appropriate and under what conditions. In addition, duration curves also provide a
context for evaluating both monitoring data and modeling information. This offers another way to
look at identifying data needs where adaptive management is being considered or utilized.
A simple way to illustrate the use of load duration curves in an achievability analysis could start
with the evaluation of point source contributions in a watershed, much like Kansas did in their
initial work. These are relatively continuous discharges that do not exhibit the wide range of flow
variation observed with nonpoint source inputs. A logical next step that extends the achievability
analysis to nonpoint sources could focus on those contributing areas most likely to deliver storm
water generated during low flow conditions, such as riparian zones. The analysis might consider,
for example, a range of buffer widths that could be applied to different channel types in the
watershed. Similarly, extending the analysis to consider other potential nonpoint source inputs
could focus on expected load reduction estimates that might be achieved using best management
practices appropriate to the source area and delivery mechanism of concern. One example might
estimate expected load reductions to be achieved using grassed waterways or conservation tillage.
The resulting TMDL would be the aggregate analysis of practices considered for implementation
in the watershed plan.
Adaptive Management
Adaptive management plays a key role in the implementation process for achieving load reductions.
Using a value-added bottom-up approach, TMDL development uses the best available data. Progress
towards achieving load allocations are periodically assessed through phased implementation using
measurable milestones. Under adaptive management, a watershed plan should not be delayed because
of a lack of data and information for the "perfect solution." The process should use an iterative
approach that continues while better data are collected, results analyzed, and the watershed plan
enhanced, as appropriate. Thus, implementation can focus on a cumulative reduction in loadings
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
25
-------
Observations on
Technical
Achievability in
TMDL Development
(continued)
under a plan that is flexible enough to allow for refinement, which better reflects the current state
of knowledge about the system and incorporates new and innovative techniques.
[For more information, contact Bruce Cleland, America's Clean Water Foundation, 25919-99th Avenue,
S.I/I/, Vashon, WA 98070. Phone: (206) 463-2596; e-mail: b.cleland@acwf.org. Kansas contacts: Hank
Ernst, Kansas Water Office. Phone: (785) 296-0866; e-mail: hernst@kwo.state.ks.us; and Don Snethen,
Kansas Department of Health and Environment. E-mail: dsnethen@kdhe.state.ks.us.]
Sediment Sampling Instrumentation Now Available to the Public
Sediment sampling instrumentation,
available for many years solely to federal
agencies, can now be purchased by the
public, thanks to the EPA Headquarters
Watershed Branch, which worked with the
Federal Interagency Sediment Project
Committee. The instruments development
and distributed by the Federal Interagency
Sedimentation Project (FISP) are intended
to give precise and accurate readings of
the transport and deposition of sediments
for use in a variety of applications where
assessment of sedimentation conditions in
surface waters is necessary.
A cooperative agreement has been
completed between four companies and
the FISP that allows these companies to
act as authorized commercial distributors
of FISP-produced and tested samplers and
associated equipment. FISP will continue
to sell FISP equipment directly to all
federal agencies and the four distributors
will sell FISP equipment to state and local
government agencies, international
government agencies, universities, private
organizations and companies, and
individuals.
[For contact information about these
companies, visit fisp.wes.army.mil.]
Notes on Education
Washington State Features Exceptional Environmental Education Resources
Looking for examples of great nonpoint source pollution education resources? Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) recently developed a web site to help Pacific Northwest educators
find and access exceptional resources from across the region. Called the Showcase (/Exceptional
Environmental Education Products, and located at www.ecy.wa.gov/forms/showcase, the site uses an
online searchable database to help connect users with the information resources they need.
Why Create the Database?
"For years we have been funding the development of products, like brochures and curricula, that
were intended to serve as models for others to emulate but never got promoted as such. Other
people's products, some of them really original and outstanding, came to our attention. However,
we didn't have any way to easily communicate this information to the public. We developed
Showcase to make the best ones we found available," explained Annie Phillips with Ecology.
Showcase offers information about diverse resources, including CD ROMs, web sites, booklets,
pamphlets, brochures, videos, guidance documents, and entire campaigns and programs related to
NPS pollution. Users may search for resources by category (i.e., household practices,
industry-specific guidelines, etc.) or format (i.e., CDROMs, videos, etc.). The web site provides
detailed information about each resource, including a description, author, production date, the
intended audience, a web link, and how to obtain a copy.
Any materials applicable to nonpoint problems in the Pacific Northwest may be submitted to
Ecology for consideration. Nomination forms are available online. Once they receive the
information, Ecology staff will rate the product based on the following four criteria:
Execution: How clear and accurate is the message? How attractive and eye-catching is the
design? Is it too long/short?
Effectiveness: Does the product influence the target audience and/or raise awareness?
Relevance: Is the product relevant to the target audience's interests, lifestyles, and prior
knowledge?
Adaptability: Can it be easily altered to apply to different regions or purposes?
Each criterion will be assigned between 1 and 5 water drops, with 5 being the best. Only those
products that receive an average of at least four drops in all four criteria will be included on the
26
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
Washington State
Features Exceptional
Environmental
Education
Resources
(continued)
web site. Ecology staff reviewed more than 120 products, of which 84 have met the criteria for
listing on the web site.
"Showcase provides people with easy access to good publications that they may either use directly
or model their own materials after," said Phillips. "Why spend the time and effort developing
something from scratch when so many great examples are already available?' As more people learn
about the site, Ecology staff anticipates an increase in the number and type of resources featured in
the Showcase.
[For more information contact Annie Phillips, WA State Department of Ecology, PO Box 47600, Olympia
98504-7600. Phone: (360) 407-6408; E-mail: aphi461@scy.wa.gov.]
Sharon and Beginning Readers Search for the Environment
"Sharon, a young girl, sets out on a quest to find the
environment, which her teacher, Miss Clark, says people
need to keep clean. Herman, a squirrel who seems to know
more than he's telling, helps Sharon look."
Sharon is the main character in a new read-along children's
book published by the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS), an arm of the National Institutes of
Health in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Although the printed version of Sharon Finds the Environment
is hot off the presses, Sharon has been tested and praised
by young readers on the NIEHS Kids' Page
(www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/home.htm) for over a year. In fact,
there is a second Sharon story also on the web, Sharon
Cleans Up, along with additional stories, games, music, and
more.
[Copies of Sharon Finds the Environment are available at no
cost for single copies or in limited quantities by contacting
Sharon Book at NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709. Phone: (919) 541-3345; e-mail:
b ooklet@iiehs. nih.gov.]
Be Prepared to Restore!
Riparian restoration is more than volunteer work for some Maryland Boy Scouts. The Scouts help
local nonprofit and government organizations implement riparian restoration projects in the
Tiber-Hudson River watershed located in northern Howard County. Unlike a typical restoration
project, however, these Scouts do more than just help plant trees and shrubs. They do it all: plan
the project layouts, identify and solicit funding sources, drum up volunteer support, plant, and
maintain the restoration project. Why? Many local Scouts choose to restore riparian buffers as part
of their Eagle Scout projects in exchange for a choice of project sites and guidance from the local
organizations on riparian restoration and grant writing. All parties benefit. The Scouts gain
additional responsibility while local organizations attain environmental improvement with minimal
financial investment.
How it All Began
The Tiber-Hudson Watershed Partnership (THWP), the environmental arm of the nonproft,
volunteer-driven Ellicott City Restoration Foundation, developed the Helping Our Wild Neighbors
(H O WN) program in the mid-1990s. The Boy Scout project serves as a key program within
HOWN. "Our suburban residential county lacks understory vegetation. If you look
around, all you see is lawn after lawn after lawn," explained Cindy Hirshberg,
THWP Chair. "Even the vegetation in rights-of-way under utility lines was
maintained by mowing. In cases where the rights-of-way transected the
Tiber-Hudson River the corridor was often mown almost all the way to the river
bank. Erosion and flooding is a problem. We initiated HOWN to begin restoring the
stream buffers between the grassy meadows in the powerline right-of-way and the
river, with the ultimate goal of increasing wildlife habitat and capturing nonpoint
source pollutants." Baltimore Gas and Electric, the local electric utility (currently
owned by Constellation Energy), gave THWP permission to restore understory
and riparian areas located on the utility's rights-of way.
Boy Scout Troop members pause from their
restoration work.
THWP wanted to develop the HOWN program so it could also serve as an
educational tool for local children and their parents. When a Scout group asked
THWP if some of the Scouts could develop Eagle Scout projects in support of the
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
27
-------
MOWN Scout Badge
Be Prepared to HOWN program, a perfect partnership was born. THWP applied for and received a $16,000 EPA
Restore! environmental justice grant to support development of the THWP/Scout partnership, creation of
(continued) the Eagle Scout project5 m^ development of the HOWN Scout badge. Using the funds, THWP
arranged for the nonprofit Center for Watershed Protection (CWP), also located in Ellicott City,
to educate Scout troop leaders about watershed science and provide the educational resources to
prepare Scouts for stream buffer restoration projects.
First, CWP held educational sessions for the Scout troops to explain the importance of healthy
watersheds. They explained the process and purpose of riparian restoration and emphasized that
restoration is only one important tool in an overall watershed protection strategy. Jennifer Zielinsky,
Watershed Engineer at CWP and HOWN instructor, notes that "although not all Scouts were planning
to develop restoration-related Eagle Scout projects, each session attendee learned valuable information."
To further prepare Eagle Scout candidates and their Scout leaders, THWP held several grant-writing
sessions that taught young scouts and their leaders how to identify, apply for, and manage grants. The
CWP also gave THWP and Scout leaders copies of the presentations on CD ROM so the information
could be shared with future Eagle Scout candidates and new Scout leaders.
Applying What They've Learned
The Scouts, now armed with resources, could proceed. According to Scout leader John Esworthy,
five Scouts have currently completed their Eagle Scout projects and approximately 20 more are
either in the planning/implementation phase or have expressed intentions to initiate a project.
Some of the projects are straight riparian restoration where the Scouts choose a site, plan the
project, find funding, and order the plants, assemble volunteers, and implement the project. The
Scouts must also monitor and maintain the project to ensure the native plants remain healthy.
These projects are typically large: the Eagle Scout candidate plants between 50 and 100 trees and
shrubs and creates a buffer at least 75 feet wide on each river bank.
Eagle Scout candidates learn to take the initiative and find the resources needed to support their
projects. Since most projects require extensive planting, the Eagle Scout Candidates typically
recruit members of their troop to help. In return for assistance, each troop member earns credit
towards merit badge components encompassed in the HOWN badge, such as wildlife, forestry,
and water quality. Each component earns its own arc-shaped badge that fits around the outer edge
of the HOWN badge.
The Future
The program continues to expand. Currently, Scouts are planting only at two utility right-of-way
sites in the Patapsco River watershed located in the northern portion of the county. With the
cooperation of the Howard County Department of Public Works, the project will soon host
planting sites on public land in the Patuxent River watershed located in the southern portion of the
county. Both rivers are important freshwater tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.
[For more information, contact the Tiber-Hudson Watershed Partnership, Ellicott City Restoration
Foundation, P.O. Box 92, Ellicott City, MD 21041. Phone: (410) 480-0822; e-mail: ECRFPres@3ol.com.]
Reviews and Announcements
National Coastal Condition Report
The Notional Coastal Condition Report, available online at www.epa.gov/owow/oceams/nccr/indexhtml,
describes the ecological and environmental conditions in American coastal waters. This report, first
of its kind, presents a broad baseline picture of the overall condition of United States waters as fair
to poor and varying from region to region. The Report will serve as a useful benchmark for
measuring progress in coastal programs in the future. In subsequent years, additional publications
examining specialized coastal issues and measuring condition changes over time will be developed.
The report represents a coordinated effort between EPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It summarizes the
condition of ecological resources in the estuaries of the United States and highlights several exemplary
federal, state, tribal, and local programs that assess coastal ecological and water quality conditions.
28
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
National Coastal Download the National Coastal Condition Report at www.epa.gov/owow/oceams/nccr/index.html
Condition Report Or for hard copies, contact the EPANSCEP by mail at P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio
(continued) 45242-0419. Phone: (800) 490-9198; e-mail: ncepimal@Dne.net (reference publication number
EPA 620/R-01/005). For more information on EPA's coastal program, contact Barry Burgan at
(202) 566-1242 or Kevin Summers at (850) 934-9244.
Terrene Institute Releases New Puzzle
Anew watershed management puzzle is available from Terrene! Taken from another popular
poster, Watershed Management: A Community Process, Terrene's second puzzle offers another fun
way of learning about watershed management. Buy puzzles for only $14 each and a companion
poster for $5. If you buy by the case (24 puzzles), you will save 30%. To order, visit
www.terrene.org, or call (703) 548-5473.
Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual Released
The new Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual (OWTS) is now available at
www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/Pubs/625R00008/625R00008.htm. The new manual complements
the 1980 Design Manual for Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (EPA
625/180-012), which served as a standard reference for onsite/decentralized program managers,
designers, installers, and others involved in the management and design of these systems for years.
EPA Offices of Water and Research and Development co-chaired the current revision over the last
five years. A wide variety of experts in the onsite field contributed ideas and provided technical
comments throughout the process.
The manual provides the latest information on onsite system management, siting, design,
installation, maintenance, monitoring, and replacement. It will help users assess and select the
most suitable sets of technologies and techniques appropriate for site specific conditions. It also
promotes use of an integrated risk/performance-based approach to design and includes information
on cost and effectiveness.
[For more information, contact Rod Frederick, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source
Control Branch, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, (4503T), Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202)
566-1197; e-mail: frederick.rod@epa.gov.]
Road Maintenance Training Video Set
The San Dimas Technology and Development Center recently released the Road Maintenance
video set, a five-part video series focusing on environmentally sensitive methods for maintaining
low traffic volume roads. Though the Center developed the set primarily for USDA Forest Service
equipment operators, the concepts are applicable to most dirt and gravel roads regardless of
location or organization. The set includes the following videos:
Forest Roods and the Environment A visually pleasing overview of how the road and
environment interact with each other. This introduction to maintenance of low volume
roads highlights several issues that benefit from proper maintenance activities, including
water temperature, fish habitat and aggregate surfacing loss.
Reading the Traveled Way This segment focuses on understanding what the condition of
the road is and providing insights on how to proactively avoid costly repairs by properly
addressing the road in its current condition.
Reading beyond the Traveled Way Properly maintained roads require an understanding
of what is happening beyond the road surface. Considering the natural functions before
beginning maintenance operations can help minimize significant impacts to the road.
Smoothing and Reshaping the Traveled Way This video covers detailed step-by-step
processes used for both smoothing and reshaping a road.
Maintaining the Ditch and Surface Cross Drains This provides comprehensive
instructions for correctly constructing and maintaining ditches, culverts and various
surface cross drains.
[For free copies of the set, contact USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development
Center, 444 £ Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, CA 91773. Phone: (909) 599-1267; fax: (909) 592-2309.]
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 29
-------
Web Sites Worth a Bookmark
Wateratlas. org, www. wateratlas. usf. edu
Wateratlas.org is the gateway to a group of web sites developed by the Florida Center for Community
Design and Research in partnership with local, state, and federal government agencies. Their goal is
to design a comprehensive online data resource, covering the State of Florida, to help citizens and
scientists make informed decisions concerning Florida's vital water resources.
Kentucky Water Watch, water.nr.state.ky.us/ww
The Kentucky Water Watch Project boasts more than 1,500 Kentucky residents who give their
time to improve Kentucky waterways through a coordinated campaign of water quality
monitoring, skills development, and advocacy. More than 300 organizations contribute to the
effort by providing volunteers and staff, technical assistance, and financial resources. The web site
contains a multitude of information including a list of volunteer monitoring web sites, listservs for
individual Kentucky watersheds, and outreach and communication mechanisms.
National Mitigation Banking Association, www.mitigationbanking.org
Established in 1998, the National Mitigation Banking Association (NMBA) promotes an
entrepreneurial approach for restoring America's natural resources. The organization implements
this approach through a variety of research, education, and outreach programs.
LJ3 iQ DOOK DATEBOOK is prepared with the cooperation of our readers. If you would like a meeting or event placed
in the DATEBOOK, contact the NFS News-Notes editors. Notices should be in our hands at least two
months in advance to ensure timely publication.
Meetings and Events
September 2002
28-Oct 2 WEFTEC 2002, Chicago, IL. For more information, call (800) 666-0206 or e-mail confmfo@vef.org.
October 2002
45 2002 Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group Watershed Conference: Watersheds and the Natural State. Little Rock, AK.
Contact Donald Anthony at (501) 682-0018; web site: www.awag.org/pdf/registration.pdf
610 Youth Watershed Summit, Edgewater, Maryland. The three-day forum consists of a series of educational, work
group and plenary sessions on technical and policy issues concerning watershed protection for 250 students from
across the country. Contact Webmaster(2^cwf.org for more information.
18 National Water Monitoring Day. Citizen monitors, established volunteer monitoring organizations, and federal,
state, tribal and local monitoring staff are invited to participate in water monitoring on the 30th Anniversary of the
Clean Water Act. Visit the web site at www.yearofcleanwater.org.
2123 Delaware Erosion & Stormwater Program Conference 2002, Dover, DE. Contact Jeanne Feurer, Conference
Coordinator; DNREC Division of Soil and Water Conservation, 89 Kings Highway, Dover, DE 19901; Phone:
(302) 739-4411; Fax: (302) 739-6724.
2830 Senior Watershed Summit, Sandy Cove, MD. America's Clean Water Foundation and the Environmental Alliance
for Senior Involvement are joining together to sponsor a national forum to bring together senior citizens from
across the nation. Contact Webmaster(3^cwforg for more information.
30NOV I World Watershed Summit, Washington, DC. The three-day forum consists of a series of educational, work group
and plenary sessions on technical and policy issues concerning international water resource protection issues for
200 government and private sector leaders. Contact Webmaster(2^cwf.org for more information.
November 2002
37 A WRA 's2002 Annual Water Resources Conference. Philadelphia, PA Contact the American Water Resources
Association, P.O. Box 1626, Middleburg, VA20118; Phone: 540-687-8390; Fax: 540-687-8395; e-mail:
harriette(3^wra.org; web site: www.awra.org.
1316 National TMDL Science and Policy Conference. Phoenix, AZ. Topics will include how the TMDL process can be
improved, how to approach a complex water pollution problem, and how to use practical strategies to protect
watersheds. Visit the web site at www.wef.org/Conferences/TMDL2002/opening.jhtml.
1620 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) 23rd Annual Meeting. Achieving Global Environmental
Quality: Integrating Science & Management. Salt Lake City, UT. Visit the web site at www.setac.org/SLC.html.
30 NONPOI NT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
-------
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon #69
(Mail or Fax this coupon to us)
Our Mailing Address:
A/PS News-Notes, c/o TetraTech (EPA Contractor), 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340,
Fairfax, VA 22030
Our Fax Numbers: A/PS News-Notes (202) 566-1333 and (703) 385-6007.
Use this Coupon to
(check one or more) Q Share Your Clean Water Experiences
Q Ask for Information
Q 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:
SEPTEMBER2002, ISSUE #69
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 31
-------
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES is an occasional bulletin dealing with the condition of the water-related environment,
the control of nonpoint sources of water pollution and the ecosystem-driven management and restoration of water-
sheds. NPS pollution comes from many sources and is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the
ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural pollutants and pollutants resulting from human activ-
ity, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and ground water. NPS pollution is associated
with land management practices involving agriculture, silviculture, mining, and urban runoff. Hydrologic modification
is a form of NPS pollution which often adversely affects the biological integrity of surface waters.
Editorial contributions from our readers sharing knowledge, experiences and/or opinions are invited and welcomed.
(Use the COUPON on page 30.) However, NEWS-NOTES cannot assume any responsibility for publication or
nonpublication of unsolicited material nor for statements and opinions expressed by contributors. All material in
NEWS-NOTES has been prepared by the staff unless otherwise attributed. For inquiries on editorial matters, call (703)
385-6007 or FAX (202) 566-1333.
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES\s produced by the Terrene Institute under an EPA Cooperative Agreement
(# 820957-01) from the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is distributed free of cost. Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those
of EPA or the Terrene Institute. Mention of commercial products or publications does not constitute endorsement, or
recommendation for use, by EPA or the Terrene Institute.
NONPOINT SOURCE
News-Notes
c/o Terrene Institute Merrifield, VA
4 Herbert Street Permit No. 1308
Alexandria, VA 22305
NONPROFIT ORG.
------- |