July 2000
#61
Nonpoint Source
News-Notes
The Condition of the Water-Related Environment
The Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
The Ecological Management & Restoration of Watersheds
Focus: Forestry Management
Forest Service Proposes Road Policy Changes
The Changing Dynamics of Forest Road Use
With ever-increasing public use of national forests, the Forest Service road system must be
managed effectively. An estimated 1.7 million recreational vehicles and 150,000 logging trucks and
industry vehicles drive on the estimated 380,000 miles of road in the Forest Service road system
each day — an intensity that is eight times the volume of the interstate highway system. During
the summer, recreational use of the Forest Service road system jumps up to more than 13 million
recreational vehicles per day. Because the budget for road construction, maintenance, and
decommissioning has been cut from $297 million in 1988 to $187 million in 1998, the Forest
Service has had to manage the largest road system in the United States with, according to the
Forest Service, inadequate funding.
Forest roads can provide access to some of the most spectacular scenery in the country. However,
heavy traffic and improper construction and management of forest roads damages that scenery and
degrades water quality and habitats. For example, substandard roads contribute to soil erosion and
sedimentation of waterways, adversely affecting fish populations, riparian zones, and wetland
habitats for many animal species. Forest roads also fragment habitat for wildlife and create
corridors for exotic species to thrive.
Proposed Policy Changes
Currently, the Forest Service estimates that 60,000 miles of unauthorized, unplanned, and
temporary roads are present on National Forests and Grasslands. These user-created "ghost roads"
contribute significantly to habitat degradation and water pollution. Artifacts of frequently used and
Inside this Issue
The CWAP logo denotes
articles related to action
items called for in the
President's Clean Water
Act/on Plan. See News-
Notes #51 and #52 for
more information on the
plan.
Special Focus: Forestry Management
Forest Service Proposes Road Policy Changes 1
Forest Service Invests Millions in Watershed Projects 4
An Example to Follow—Forestry BMPs in the Upper Peninsula
of Michigan 5
Millennium Green Sets Stewardship Example for Generations to Come . 6
Innovations: Banking on the Forest 7
Kurak Tribe of California Preserves Its Water Resources, Creates Jobs. . . 9
Forest'A'Syst Helps Forest Landowners Protect Water Quality 11
Motes on the National Scene
New Report Says Clean Water Is Important to the Economy 12
National Watershed Outreach Conference Reaches the Masses 13
Mews from the States, Tribes, and Localities
Love and Money: NPS Funds Restore Spawning Habitat (and other good
stuff) for New York State Fish 14
Tribal Watershed Analysis and Management Pilot Project 17
League of Women Voters Flood the Market with NPS Education in
Colorado 18
Motes on Watershed Management
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Programs—Are They
Good Enough? 19
Innovative Financing Training Available 21
A Survey of Residential Nutrient Behavior 21
National Effluent Guidelines for the Construction and Development
Industry In the Works 23
Motes on Education
"Pipes to Ponds" Curricula Brings Local Water Issues Home 24
Cooperative Extension Educates Suburbia on Lawn and Landscapes. . . 25
Reviews and Announcements
The Lake Pocket Book 27
Building Blocks for Emerging Environmental Non-Profit Organizations:
Lessons from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation 27
Directory of Funding Sources for Grassroots River and Watershed 27
Conservation Groups in New England and New York 1999-2000 27
Two New Low-Impact Development Manuals 27
Recipes for Clean Water: A Homeowner's Stormwater Survival Guide. ... 28
Web Sites Worth A Bookmark
www.bmpdatabase.org 28
www.americanforests.org 28
www.afandpa.org 29
DATEBOOK 29
THE COUPON 31
All issues of News-Notes are accessible on EPA's website: www.epa.gov/OWOW/info/NewsNotes/index.html.
-------
Forest Service
Proposes Road
Policy Changes
(continued)
well-worn paths, they lack the engineering, design, and maintenance needed to create
environmentally friendly roads. To address these and other issues the Forest Service has proposed
policies for each of the following categories:
• Planning Criteria (Proposed Planning Rule)
• Road Management and Construction (Proposed Road Policy)
• Keeping Areas Roadless (Roadless Area Proposal)
These three separate and distinct Forest Service proposals form a coherent overall strategy for
managing forestlands and the National Forest Service road system. The time line below shows the
expected completion dates of the three area proposals. Both proposals will be finalized by the end
of the year.
Planning Rule
The Forest Service first proposed changes to planning regulations in the late 1980s. Ten years later
that proposal was overhauled by a government-selected committee of scientists experienced in
forest planning. The planning rule provides a definition of roadless areas that will be the
foundation on which both the proposed road management policy and the roadless area proposal
will base their future management approaches. The planning rule also would:
• base forest and grassland planning on the principles of ecological, economic, and social
stability;
• require the Forest Service to actively engage the public and other federal, state, tribal, and
local partners in the management of our National Forests and Grasslands;
• integrate science and scientists into the planning process, with a focus on managing entire
ecosystems rather than individual species; and
• integrate planning and management activities more closely so that the Forest Service can
respond to new information and opportunities in a timely manner.
Road Management Policy
The Proposed Road Management Policy creates a framework that allows for more informed decisions
about the Forest Service's transportation system. On January 28, 1998, the Forest Service announced
its intentions to revise regulations concerning management of all national forest roads. These roads
range from permanent, double-lane paved highways to single-lane, low-standard roads (roads not
made to handle heavy traffic) intended for high-clearance vehicles. To provide time to draft a new
road management policy, the Forest Service initiated an 18-month moratorium on road construction
and reconstruction (see News-Notes Issue #52).
U.S. Forest Service
Road Facts
v The National Forest road
system consists of more than
380,000 miles of roads.
s Currently, the Forest Service's
road maintenance and
reconstruction backlog is $8.4
billion.
s The National Forest system
includes 192 million acres of
forest and grasslands.
J The inventoried roadless areas
in the National Forest system
total more than 54 million acres
in 46 states.
The proposed road management plan examines the administration of the current road
system. This system includes roads that have been built within budgetary and
environmental constraints. The policy will reflect the public demand for changes in
the way National Forest resources are used.
By prioritizing both present and future management objectives, the policy will help
ensure that (1) areas disturbed by past road construction will be rehabilitated; (2)
Forest Service roads will be constructed and maintained efficiently; (3) the construc-
tion of new roads will be limited to those necessary for the National Forest system's
resource management objectives; and (4) future construction, restoration, and
maintenance of roads will have minimal long-term adverse environmental impacts.
According to Cindy Chojnacky of the Forest Service, "The proposed road manage-
ment policy will address a provision for local decommissioning of unafFordable,
unneeded, and environmentally damaging roads at the forest level. I think the road
management policy actually could be more controversial locally than the roadless
proposal, which would not necessarily involve closing existing roads." The controversy
might come from people who use the roads regularly. Even though most of these
typically substandard roads are called "ghost roads" because diey were developed
anonymously by forest users and the recreating public, some forest users such as local
2 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JULY 20OO, ISSUE #61
-------
Forest Service
Proposes Road
Policy Changes
(continued)
hunters, anglers, and off-road vehicle enthusiasts, consider them important. There are not enough
law enforcement officials to regulate road use on the ghost roads throughout the National Forest
system, and therefore road closure is considered an environmentally and economically viable
option.
Roadless Area Proposal
Roadless areas on National Forests provide vast tracts of undeveloped land. The Forest Service set a
moratorium on road building in these areas in 1998. On October 13, 1999, the President asked
the Forest Service to prepare regulations addressing various forest activities such as new road
construction in roadless areas. Acting on this request, on October 19, 1999 the Forest Service
released a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) The EIS
will evaluate possible regulations and is being done as a two-part process. Part 1 considers several
management strategies that prohibit road construction and reconstruction and might preclude
resource management activities such as logging. Part 2 considers alternative sets of procedures local
managers can use during planning to protect the unroaded portions of inventoried roadless areas.
On December 20, 1999, the Forest Service concluded a comment period on the scope of the proposal
with national meetings and meetings on every National Forest and Grassland. Comments collected
during this period have been used to shape the Proposed Rule and Draft EIS, which was released in
May. The final EIS will be accompanied by a notice of availability (NOA) and sent to Congress for a
30-day review. The Final EIS and Rule should be completed by the end of 2000. The Rule will be
implemented mostly at the National Forest level through forest and project planning.
There is a strong need to come to an agreement on the future management and protection of our
Forest Service lands. As Gifford Pinchot, founder of the Forest Service and father of modern-day
forestry, said nearly a century ago, "National forests are made for and owned by the people. They
should also be managed by the people. This means that if national forests are going to accomplish
anything worthwhile, the people must know all about them and must take an active part in their
management."
[For more information on the Roadless Area Proposal visit the Forest Service's web site at
roadless.fs.fed.us/index.html. For more information on the Road Management Policy visit
www. fs. fed. us/news/roads.]
Time Line of Forest Service Policy Proposals
1998
ROAD POLICY PROPOSAL
On January 28 the Forest Service published
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
giving notice of its intention to revise its
regulations for managing roads within the
National Forest Service road system. This
initiated an 18-month moratorium on road
construction and reconstruction.
ROADLESS AREA PROPOSAL
PROPOSED PLANNING RULE
1999
On March 2 the Forest Service released the
proposed road policy.
On March 18 the Forest Service temporarily
suspended forest road construction, and this
suspension will expire upon the adoption of
the revised road management policy or in 18
months, whichever is sooner.
On October 13 President Clinton initiated the
proposal for protection of forest roadless
areas.
On October 19 the Forest Service released a
preliminary draft EIS and proposed rule
addressing President Clinton's request, with a
60-day public comment period.
On October 5 the 90-day comment period
began.
2000
On May 2 all comments on the proposed
road policy were due. By fall 2000 the Road
Policy will be finalized.
After addressing public comments, a draft
EIS and proposed rule was released in May
2000 for public comment. Public comments
are due by July 17.
The final EIS and regulation on roadless
areas will be out by the end of 2000.
The comment period was extended to
February 10, 2000. More than 10,000
comments were received.
The final rule will be published in the Federal
Register by the end of the summer.
JULY 2000, ISSUE #61
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Forest Service Invests Millions
in Watershed Projects
The Forest Service is investing an additional $11.8 million to help restore 12 large watersheds
nationwide. This additional funding supplements about $6.7 million from local Forest Service
funds and up to $18 million from partner organizations. The total investment in the 12 watershed
restoration projects will be about $36 million in fiscal 2000.
This renewed commitment to watershed protection builds on the Forest Services Natural Resource
Agenda for the 21st Century, unveiled in a speech by Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck in
March of 1998. The agenda serves as the Chief's statement of commitment especially to watershed
health improvements, sustainable forest management, outdoor recreation, and a science-based
forest road policy that meets the needs of Americans and protects the environment.
"Watershed maintenance and restoration are the oldest and highest callings of the Forest Service,"
said Dombeck. " The agency is, and always will be, bound to them by tradition, law, and science.
With 80 percent of the nation's freshwater sources originating on National Forest system lands, in a
very real sense the National Forests are the headwaters of the nation," he said. "Our first priority is
to maintain and restore the health of our ecosystems and watersheds. We must protect our
healthiest watersheds and restore those that are degraded." In fact, Dombeck listed watershed
health improvements, as the Forest Service's first priority. Sustainable forest
management, outdoor recreation, and timber harvesting were listed as the second,
third and fourth priorities.
The projects selected to receive the new funding demonstrate diversity in project
scope and location. The Forest Service evaluated the projects based on their location
and purpose, partnerships, feasibility, and innovation. More than 60 project proposals
were submitted. Collaborative partners include conservation, wildlife, and forest
management groups; American Indian tribes; state and local governments; and
community organizations.
"How we manage our
forests has a profound
effect on the quality of
our drinking water and the
ability of our watersheds
to perform their most
basic functions."
—USDA Forest Service Chief
Mike Dombeck
The watershed restoration projects are:
The New York City Watershed Study. The New York City Watershed Study will evaluate
technology used for absorbing water pollutants in municipal watersheds and potential markets for
forest byproducts or waste. Testing and evaluation will be done in the Catskill/Delaware watershed,
which provides almost 90 percent of New York City's water supply.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed project will integrate riparian and
wetland research and restoration work at the headwaters of the Chesapeake Bay. Key watersheds
include the Monocacy and Antietam watersheds, and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River
watershed.
Chattooga River. The Chattooga River restoration project will focus on reducing sediment from
roads, trails, and construction and cultivation areas. The project will improve water quality and
aquatic habitats by relocating and improving recreation facilities, roads, and trails and by offering
conservation education programs. This watershed project is near the cities of Atlanta, Georgia,
Greenville, South Carolina, and Charlotte and Asheville, North Carolina.
Conasauga River. This watershed improvement project will match funding with the Conasauga
River Alliance for ongoing watershed and riparian restoration work. This watershed is approximately
20 percent National Forest System land, which includes the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee
and the Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia. Work on the project includes sediment reduction,
recovery planning for endangered and threatened species, research studies, urban forestry,
conservation education, and road reconstruction and relocation.
Rio Penasco. The Rio Penasco River restoration project will restore drainage patterns and water
quality on more than 120,000 acres of watershed in New Mexico by reducing wildfire fuels and
improving range conditions, water quality, riparian areas, and springs.
NONPOIMT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
-------
Upper Sevier River. The Upper Sevier River watershed restoration project will improve forest
. health, range, and riparian restoration activities along the headwaters of the river in the Dixie
, ,. ,. National Forest in Utah.
(continued)
Upper South Platte. The Upper South Platte project is designed to restore this Denver-area
watershed following recent multiple wildfires and flooding. The project will also improve forested
areas in the watershed to reduce risks from insects, disease, and wildfire.
Warner Mountain/Hackamore. The Warner Mountain/Hackamore project in the Modoc
National Forest in northeastern California will accelerate riparian, wetland, forest, and rangeland
restoration activities on the 510,000 acres that form the headwaters of the Pit River. Twenty
percent of the total runoff into the Sacramento River flows from the Pit.
White River. The White River project is designed to restore riparian and aquatic habitats and
water quality on a large watershed that serves more than 20 towns in central Vermont. Work
includes watershed planning, conservation education, and riverbank restoration and stabilization.
Pacific Coastal Watersheds. The Pacific Coastal Watersheds project initiates a partnership
among local, state, and federal governments; conservation organizations; and other nongovernment
organizations to address watershed restoration. This project focuses on opportunities for restoring
watershed health along the Pacific Coast on the South Fork Coquille River, the Sandy River Delta,
and the Siuslaw River.
Blue Mountains Province. The Blue Mountains Province project will improve watershed
conditions, contributing to the long-term recovery of Northwest salmon populations and the forest
health of areas at risk of damage from insects, disease, and/or catastrophic fire within the Grand-
Ronde Wallowa and John Day River watersheds in eastern Oregon.
Lower Mississippi Valley. The Lower Mississippi Valley project will accelerate a "bottomland
hardwoods" restoration effort on the lower Mississippi River to restore wildlife habitat and
wetlands and to provide economic return for landowners.
[For more information, contact Karen Solari, U.S. Forest Service; Phone: (202) 205-0879; E-mail:
kso/ari@fs.fed.us.]
An Example to Follow — Forestry BMPs in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
Since settlement in the late 1800s, mining and timber extraction in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan have had a considerable effect on the natural landscape. Small holding dams used by
loggers, wooden deflection structures and jetties, and riprap along the bends have modified streams
in the 47,350-acre Pine Creek watershed in south-central Dickinson County. Ongoing timber
harvesting compounds the stream sedimentation and erosion problems caused by past resource
extraction, and recreational activities and agricultural operations continue to add insult to injury.
The terrain in the area is marked by numerous ephemeral gullies, as well as streams, lakes, and
wetlands. In parts, rocky outcrops and bluffs are prominent. Over such land cover, the practice of
forest harvesting has to be tempered with conservation measures to prevent further degradation.
The Pine Creek Watershed Project is administered by the Dickinson Conservation District and is
funded through a section 319 grant. Its aim is to protect the top-quality trout streams of the area
and to promote conservation measures by foresters, landowners, and loggers.
The projects salient feature has been the development of four exemplary sites that demonstrate die
BMPs in forestry operations, which are still voluntary in the state of Michigan. The sites were chosen
because they represented some of the most difficult terrain — rocky, uneven wet areas — for loggers
to manage in terms of erosion control. Contractors hired by the Dickinson Conservation District
received input from the program's partners, including the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Michigan State University Extension,
the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, and other loggers to create the demonstration sites. Every aspect of
the process — from site preparation, road construction, buffer strips, erosion control, winter
harvesting, skid trails, and landings to forest preparation — was examined.
JULY 2000, ISSUE #61 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 8
-------
Forestry BMPs in the The Conservation District reimbursed the contractor for the cost of the site preparation once the
Upper Peninsula of voluntary BMPs were satisfactorily in place. Because contractors believe one of the principal
Michigan constraints on following BMP guidelines is their cost, the Dickinson Conservation District
(continued) continues to be committed to finding ways to help them offset these costs.
In addition to forestry, the project addresses the offshoots of resource extraction, including tailings,
land erosion, road crossings, domestic animal access to streams, and dams. Supplementary projects
have included stabilizing culverts and drainages to prevent sediment loss from roads, erecting
livestock exclusion fencing, and planting soil-stabilizing vegetation in highly credible areas. Grade
stabilization, sediment basin construction, and diversions (earth structures that divert excess water
to safe disposal sites) are also part of the engineering solutions overseen by the project.
In addition to demonstrating practicable BMP options, the sites serve an important role in giving
loggers ownership of conservation practices. As loggers become "participant educators,"
conservation measures become a reality and move beyond simple government regulation and
direction. Promoting awareness is the most effective way of making users of resources active players
in watershed protection.
[Numerous pictures and descriptions of the work that has been accomplished in the Pine Creek
Watershed Project are available on the project's web site at www.dickinsoncd.org/pinecreek/. For more
information, contact Melissa Halstead, Project Manager, Dickinson Conservation District, 102 North
Hooper Street, Kingsford, Ml 49802. Phone: (906) 774-8441 or (906) 774-1550; fax: (906) 774-0177:
e-mail: Dcdbill@up.net.]
Millennium Green Sets Stewardship
Example for Generations to Come
fVUUfNNWM ORMN
Bone* »he Past-haagtoe the r\*«
Goals of Millenium Green
For every person to plant and/or adopt a tree
or a garden for the new millennium.
For every community to identify and protect
a heritage tree, grove, or natural wonder or
treasure of special significance.
For every business or corporation to plant
and/or adopt a tree or garden or protect a
natural resource wonder or treasure for the
new millennium on behalf of every employee
or client, working through national, state, and
local nonprofit tree planting, garden, and
conservation programs.
When most people dream about the future and the next
millenium, they think about faster Internet access or visiting
Mars. But a new movement launched by the White House is
asking people to think Green. Millennium Green, launched on December 15, 1999, announced
the start of a nationwide program that encourages all citizens to promote and create more livable
community environments for the new millennium.
Created by President Clinton and the First Lady and led by the White House Millennium Council
and the Department of Agriculture, Millennium Green is a tool to get every citizen involved in
environmental protection and enhancement. This involvement includes "hands on" community
activities such as planting trees along urban streets and as riparian buffers, adopting forests,
creating or preserving open green spaces, and protecting natural resource treasures such as
wetlands and wildlife habitats. To date, 38 states are committed to "hands on" stewardship
through numerous public agencies, corporations, private organizations, and individuals who are
participating in the project. "So far, the Governors of Ohio and Nevada have committed their
states to plant a tree for every resident in their state and California
has dedicated planting 20 million trees," said Jake Kutiwaard of
Millennium Green. That will mean 33,065,908 trees planted in
those three states alone.
Trees contributed by American Forests and other volunteer and
private organizations will be planted in "Millennium Groves"
throughout the country. These groves will enhance the environment
and also will act as educational tools, stressing the importance of
environmental protection for the future. In addition, Millennium
Green has a nationwide goal to have a garden planted at every school.
The gardens will teach students important lessons not only on how
plants produce food but also on how they contribute to the health of
the environment and how the fate of each plant can depend on our
direct actions, through positive or negative management.
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JULY 2000, ISSUE #61
-------
Millennium Green
Sets Stewardship
Example for
Generations
to Come
(continued)
Perhaps most importantly, Millennium Green's programs protect water and other natural resources
and teach the public the importance of green space. Trees that act as buffer strips, slowing down
and filtering water runoff, can help a community save money by reducing the costs of managing
storm water. Additionally, trees in and around overheated urban centers and near homes can act as
cooling agents during the summer months. During the winter months, mature trees can act as
wind breaks and insulation for homes, again reducing energy costs. Millennium Green also
encourages the use of native species where possible.
Millennium Green will showcase environmental endeavors by groups or individuals from across the
country, through an online registration process. For each project registered, a certificate of
appreciation will be sent as an expression of gratitude. Historic farms 100 years old and up also are
encouraged to register with Millennium Green. This is a wonderful opportunity for America to
highlight and celebrate those areas of green space that have lasted through the urban sprawl.
How Can You Get Involved?
Every citizen can participate in Millennium Green — through organizations, businesses, civic
organizations, foundations, community centers, corporate office locations, etc. If there isn't already
a Millennium Green effort in your community, volunteer to start a program in your area and
become a partner in Millennium Green.
For more information and technical advice on how to properly plant trees and gardens or protect
water resources in your area, contact your local Extension office, State Forester, Natural Resources
Conservation Service office, or visit the Millennium Green web site at
www.millenniumgreen.usda.gov. The web site also has a page just for kids and a listing of the
agencies, corporations, and industries already committed to Millennium Green. Corporations can
find out how to be involved on a national scale by calling (800) 553-3557.
[For further information, contact Jake Kuitwaard of Millennium Green at (202) 720-2593.]
Innovations: Banking on the Forest
by Kent Gilges, Forest Bank Director
Since 1951 The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has pursued a mission of preserving the plants, animals,
and natural communities that represent the biological diversity of life on earth by protecting the lands
and waters they need to survive. TNC has pursued this mission through a range of protection
strategies — including ownership, conservation easements, and related management agreements —
that ensure conservation-oriented stewardship of ecologically sensitive places.
In 1995 TNC created a special operating unit called the Center for Compatible Economic
Development (CCED) as an incubator for new ideas and strategies for achieving conservation goals
by developing land uses, businesses, and products that protect important ecosystems while
enhancing local economics and achieving community goals. CCED began collaborating with local
TNC staff in a handful of locations to plan and execute initiatives that will simultaneously
accomplish conservation and development goals.
Protecting Clinch Valley Resources
For the past several years, CCED has been exploring new ways to conserve the immense biological
wealth of Central Appalachia's Clinch River Valley. The valley is home to one of the highest
concentrations of rare and endangered species in the United States — 30 federally listed species,
including 18 mussels and 4 fish.
The continued survival of these species depends on a healthy habitat. Like much of Appalachia, the
Clinch Valley has a vibrant forest ecosystem, with a wide assortment of hardwoods covering 75
percent of the region. Unfortunately, like other rural areas rich in timber resources but
comparatively poor economically, the Clinch Valley is vulnerable to reckless and unsustainable
harvesting of its timber resources. In fact, a 1997 field audit found that 92 percent of the logging
sites assessed there were not in compliance with BMPs recommended by the State of Virginia. As
the intensity of human use of the forest increases, the size of the conservation buffer provided by
JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Innovations: Banking
on the Forest
(continued)
the forest decreases. Threats such as fragmentation, erosion, sedimentation, and unsound harvest
practices can affect many aspects of the forest, endangering the forests viability for forest species
and negatively affecting watersheds and aquatic health.
Around the country, demand for domestic forest supplies is expected to outstrip supply in the
coming decades, particularly given severe cutbacks in production from the Pacific Northwest and
the national forests. Demand for wood products is driving prices up, often tempting nonindustrial
private landowners to cash in their timber resources. This potential increase in harvests could lead
to a large loss of forestland, considering that nonindustrial private forests account for just under
half of all forestland in the United States. The situation in the Clinch Valley of Virginia is no
different — more than 80 percent of the forests are in the hands of private, nonindustrial forest
landowners. It is also worthwhile to note that 90 percent of forest owners nationwide have holdings
of 100 acres or less.
Choices regarding harvest and development of such forestland are often made not for reasons
connected to ecological concerns, but by need to convert the asset to quick cash. When this
happens, the resource usually suffers and conservation values are compromised. For example, the
need to finance estate, education, or medical needs might cause a landowner to liquidate his or her
forest assets. Often, the landowner does not have the knowledge or time to monitor the timber
harvest to ensure it is done in a sustainable way. As a result, the landowner delegates this
responsibility to the harvester or forest products company. Although the majority of these agents
are experienced foresters and operators who conduct forestry activities that result in the
implementation of BMPs that adequately protect water quality, other agents may be influenced by
incentives and volume requirements that may result in the use of less environmentally protective
practices, e.g., overharvesting in streamside management zones. Commissions based on a
percentage of the harvest may also lead to overcutting.
Private landowners typically do not have a long-term planning horizon for making the decisions
regarding when and how much timber to harvest. As a result, many of the harvests that occur on
these small land areas are scattered, intermittent, and much more difficult to manage from the state
or local perspective. Tracking, monitoring, and keeping abreast of these activities is problematic for
the administering agency. To avoid these problems, TNC is promoting an alternative way of
ensuring landowners that their forestry resources will be sustainably harvested with minimal or
reduced impacts to the environment
The Solution — Forest Banking
As CCED and TNC's Virginia Chapter staff developed ideas for promoting sustainable forestry
practices in the Clinch Valley region, they drew on a combination of TNC's proven land
protection strategies and current forest management and marketing ideas. The result was the Forest
Bank, which is designed to offer private, nonindustrial landowners a new option that gives them
the financial liquidity they need in the short term while managing the resource sustainably over the
long term. By making a voluntary "deposit" or transfer to the Forest Bank of the right to grow,
manage, and harvest trees while retaining fee simple ownership of the underlying land,
participating landowners receive the following services and guarantees:
• An ironclad promise that the deposited forest will remain forest forever and will henceforth
be managed sustainably to contribute functionally to the ecosystem of which it is a part.
• A modest, regular financial return, or "dividend payment," calculated on the basis of the
deposited timber's appraised value, like a savings bank dividend.
• The option, when facing financial need, of "withdrawing" the deposit by obtaining the
cash value of the timber without having the trees cleared off their land. The right to
withdraw will be made available with certain restrictions, similar to those accompanying
familiar commercial bank certificates of deposit, such as "substantial penalty for early
withdrawal."
To analyze the Forest Bank's feasibility, TNC conducted one-on-one interviews with private
landowners in the Clinch Valley who fit the profile of the target market. In aggregate, these
landowners controlled about 4,500 acres — a mere fraction of the watershed but nonetheless a
0 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
-------
Core Principles of TNC's Forest Bank
•s Maintain and enhance the health of the forest
and plants and animals that depend on it.
^ Optimize the sustainable return to our
depositors and manage each forest deposit in
an exemplary way.
v' Protect the forestland soil productivity and the
water quality of streams, rivers, and wetlands.
v' Create economic value from the forest
resources by pursuing premium markets for our
products.
^ Manage native forest systems to produce high-
quality timber over the long term.
•/ Emulate the natural processes and patterns of
the forest and minimize the negative impacts of
our harvests.
^ Conduct the Forest Bank with financial and
biological integrity beyond reproach.
^ Continually reassess our methods and
operations and look for ways to improve the
Forest Bank.
representative sample of the region. About 70 percent expressed a
direct personal interest in the Forest Bank. Furthermore, nearly all
believed the idea would appeal to other landowners in the region. As
of June 1, 2000, one landowner had deposited land in the Clinch
Valley Forest Bank and six more were discussing potential deposits
with TNC. At the same time, a similar TNC Forest Bank being
formed in Indiana had a handful of landowners prepared to make
deposits as soon as agreements are finalized.
To secure the Forest Bank, TNC must have access to substantial capital.
Although sufficient funds have been secured from philanthropic sources
to support beginning operations in the Clinch Valley project, the long-
term plan of expanding nationwide will require much more funding.
For instance, the 10-year goal of the Clinch Valley pilot alone is to
enroll 60,000 acres, which would create a liability in potential
withdrawals of $30 million. To access low-cost capital, TNC is pursuing
options such as combining the Forest Bank with federal conservation
programs and obtaining tax-exempt financing.
The Forest Bank model is intended to be fully and broadly developed as
a tool for forest conservation. Although the initial handful of pilots like
the Clinch Valley bank will be dealing in tens of thousands of acres, the
eventual impact, in terms of replication and results, is expected to be
significantly greater.
[For more information, contact Kent Gilges, Director, The Forest Bank, 339 East Avenue, Suite 300,
Rochester, NY 14604. Phone: (716) 232-3530; e-mail: kgilges@tnc.org.]
Karuk Tribe of California Preserves Its
Water Resources, Creates Jobs
For years, the tribal lands of the Karuk Tribe of California, located in Northern California near the
Oregon state line, have been honeycombed with roads for mining (gold, gravel, and quartz) and
timber harvesting. Now that many of these mines and forests — and associated jobs — are nearly
depleted, the Karuk people are finding themselves in a critical situation — out of work and left
with a severely degraded watershed that was once their livelihood. Showing remarkable resilience,
however, the Karak people have devised a plan that will restore the integrity of their sacred lands, as
well as their economy.
Socioeconomic Concerns
Today the Karuk Tribe consists of dispersed communities whose economic and cultural lifestyle
depends on the natural resources of their watersheds. A 72 percent decline in timber harvesting
between 1989 and 1997 has devastated the economy of the mid-Klamath River region. Today the
Karuk Tribe faces an unemployment rate of 87 percent among Native Americans alone and 67
percent across the region. The average annual income in the Native American community is only
$3,089. Many tribal members who once worked for logging operations or mining companies are
now unemployed. To make matters worse, last year the Klamath National Forest lost 20 natural
resource staff positions and the Six Rivers National Forest lost 27. As the two largest employers in
the mid-Klamath River region, this downsizing has had a great impact on the local economy, and
upon the Karuk Tribe.
In addition to being economically valuable to the Karuk Tribe, the region is also culturally
significant. This forested, steeply mountainous country through which the Klamath and Salmon
rivers flow has been the home of Karuk people for thousands of years. Karuk sacred salmon fishing
and hunting grounds spanned more than a million acres throughout the northwestern region of
California. The lands were once home to Karuk sacred ceremonial activities and the Tribe is
strongly committed to revitalizing their cultural traditions. Today, 98 percent of that land is located
in the Klamath and Six Rivers National Forests.
JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 9
-------
Karuk Tribe of
California Preserves
Its Water Resources,
Creates Jobs
(continued)
Turning Point
A blessing in disguise, the overlap of the Karuk's tribal ancestral lands and the two National Forests
paved the way for a government-to-government protocol agreement in 1994 for protecting and
restoring the land. The partnership between the Forest Service and the Karuk Tribe has proved to
be a win-win situation, expediting the watershed restoration and economic development objectives
of each partner.
With assistance from the Northern California Indian Council, the tribe secured, in two years, more
than $ 1 million of funding from seven different funding sources outside the Forest Service. The
money has allowed the tribe to initiate a Comprehensive Watershed
Restoration Training and Implementation Program for tribal members and
staff. The training program, developed by Terra Wave Systems, Inc., gives
participants a thorough foundation in the technicalities underlying watershed
restoration. The goal is to develop a Tribal Restoration Division that will help
restore the Karuks' natural environment and create life-long careers for tribal
members as watershed restoration specialists at the same time. All trainees
serve an on-the-job apprenticeship in completing critical restoration work on
projects throughout the Karuk lands. The program has created a highly
skilled local workforce that has a vested interest in protecting water quality
and other natural resources while earning the family's wages.
In 1998 the Karuk Tribe entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Klamath National Forest that calls for the sharing of resources, funding, and staff to continue to
decommission Steniacher Road, an old logging road that is one of biggest problems in the Klamath
River's battle with siltation. The tribes new Tribal Restoration Division, created in 1999, secured
funds from EPA's Nonpoint Source Program to provide storm-proofing (making grooves in
roadways to direct runoff) and prescription planning until significant restoration funds were
secured for the remainder of the decommissioning. Then in 1999 the tribe began its first
restoration training program on the river.
In January 2000 another MOU was signed with the Six Rivers National Forest and the Karuk Tribe
to continue the completion of the Steinacher Road project when funding becomes available. Project
organizers estimate that it will cost $1.9 million and take three project teams two years to complete.
In April EPA allocated $150,000 in FY 2000 section 319 funds to the Karuk Tribe for the project.
Since the Tribal Restoration Division was established, 16 tribal members have been trained in
heavy equipment application, prescription planning and surveying, and supervision of project sites.
The new watershed restoration specialists have also removed approximately 58,000 cubic yards of
sediment to stable locations and reestablished the natural drainage for two major streams that cross
the abandoned Steinacher Road. So far, 2.2 miles of the 7.3 miles of the road have been
decommissioned.
Improved water quality and fisheries are seen as a significant component of rebuilding the economy of
the region. Watershed restoration represents an opportunity for long-term, stable employment based
on non-resource extraction ecosystem management and a stable, fully functioning ecosystem.
Building the Tribe's capacity to play an appropriate role in ecosystem management is the only means
by which ecosystem restoration, cultural survival, and community prosperity will be achieved.
Over the long term, more than 2,000 miles of road throughout the Karuks' ancestral territory need
decommissioning or significant upgrading and remediation of mining impacts. These projects will
take 12 project teams 25 to 30 years to complete. At a minimum this program requires $3 million
per year above the current forest watershed budget for planning, inspection, administration, and
logistical support so the program can continue. If funding can be secured, the partnership created
between the Karuk Tribe and the Forest Service will continue to serve as a model for a systematic
approach to long-term salmon recovery efforts on the Klamath River.
[For more information, contact David Burnson, TerraWave Systems, Inc., PO Box 387, Ashland, OR
97520-0013. Phone: (541) 482-8898; e-mail: dburnson@terrawavesys.com.]
10 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JULY 2000, ISSUE #61
-------
Forest*A*Syst Helps Forest Landowners Protect Water Quality
State forestry agencies now have a new tool to involve private landowners in the fight to protect
water quality and forest health. Forest*A *Syst, a new national forestry guidance document for states
to shape and mold for their specific land management needs, was released in May 1999 by North
Carolina State University's Department of Forestry. Forest*A*Syst is based on the widely popular
Home*A*Syst and Farm*A*Syst programs (see News-Notes # 23, #44, #50), which focus on water
pollution prevention from household activities and farms and ranches, respectively. All three
programs are voluntary partnerships between state government agencies and private landowners
that enable individuals to take an active role in preventing pollution in and on their own farms,
ranches, homes, and forests using confidential environmental assessments. Like Home*A*Syst and
Farm*A*Syst, Forest*A*Syst is seen as a tool to help landowners create forest management plans.
The Forest*A*Syst guidance, developed by Rick Hamilton, an Extension Forest Specialist with the
Department of Forestry at NCSU, is designed to be tailored for each state's specific management
activities or techniques. For example, where a Forest*A*Syst program created for a midwestern state
might call for prescribed or controlled burning to reduce invasive plant species, a Forest*A*Syst
program for New York would not include burning because of air quality issues. To further
customize a Forest*A*Syst program, each state will add tables, figures, and pictures of local tree and
wildlife species, as well as BMPs used to meet state forest management guidelines.
Typical Questions Asked During a
Forest*A*Syst Assessment
•/ Do you install road stabilization practices?
^ Do you carefully plan and select BMPs
before site disturbance?
v' Do you leave protective buffer strips next to
streams and water bodies?
s Do you establish vegetative cover on bare
areas?
• Do you restrict cattle from woodlots and
streamside areas?
•/ Do you test your soil to determine fertilizer
rates?
• Do you protect water quality when
constructing stream crossings?
Forest*A*Syst is targeted primarily for private forest landowners who
manage their property for timber, wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, or
water quality. The program encourages landowners to consult privately,
without the threat of regulation or fines, with a natural resource
professional who can help them enhance the forest's potential
productivity, beauty, variety, and environmental quality. According to
Hamilton, "Landowners who draw up their management plans with a
natural resource professional not only make more money from their
timber harvest, but there is the added benefit of protecting water
quality."
Consultation with a natural resource professional can take place through
the USDA's Cooperative Extension Service, USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service, a state forester, or the American Tree Farm System,
an organization that has 8,000 volunteer foresters who donate their time
to assist private landowners in developing forest management plans based
on strict water quality standards and guidelines.
Do you routinely inspect roads, stream
crossings, and BMPs?
JULY 2000, ISSUE #61
Forest*A*Syst layers information in a logical progression designed to mold
each decision-making step using a series of questions to be answered by the
landowner on the types of practices conducted on the forested land. These
questions are tailored to meet the site-specific purposes of each landowner.
For example, a table at the beginning of the water quality section is used to assess which BMPs for
forest-disturbing activities, with an emphasis on timber management, would be appropriate for each
landowner. Each phase of timber management carried out in the forest is rated as being either most
desirable, desirable, or least desirable. For example, for roads, trails, and firelines, the least desirable
option occurs when "advice from a natural resources professional is not sought. BMPs are not used in
installing new roads and trails, firelines are eroding, and there is no inspection or maintenance."
Whereas the most desirable option is to seek advice from a natural resources professional on the most
appropriate BMPs to install and how to maintain those BMPs. These insights allow landowners to
find out if their current practices are detrimental to water quality.
Then the program helps provide the landowners with the technical resources needed to change
their practices. Information and figures such as those that demonstrate BMPs that can be used to
filter water runoff before it goes into a stream, help the landowner convert to more sustainable
forest practices.
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 11
-------
Forest*A*Syst Helps Since the publication of Forest*A *Syst, several states have begun the process of customizing the
Forest Landowners program to fit their needs, including Hawaii, Georgia, Kentucky, and Alabama; Mississippi is
Protect Water Quality planning to follow suit.
(continued)
Through years of experience, state forestry agencies have learned that sound forestry practices are
critical in the fight to protect water quality. Now, the new Forest*A*Syst template will help state
foresters transfer this important knowledge more easily to the private landowner on a voluntary basis.
[For more information, contact Rick Hamilton, Extension Forestry Specialist, Department of Forestry, North
Carolina State University, Campus Box 8003, Room 3028D, Biltmore Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695-8003.
Phone: (919) 515-5574; e-mail: rick_hamilton@ncsu.edu. For more information on the American Tree Farm
System, visit the web site at www.treefarmsystem.org.]
Notes on the National Scene
New Report Says Clean Water Is Important to the Economy
As Americans plan their vacations this summer, most of them select vacation spots near water. On
June 2 EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner released, Liquid Assets 2000: America's Water
Resources at a Turning Point, a new report that shows how these vacations and hundreds of other
water uses depend on clean water. At the same time, the Agency warns that to provide the powerful
boost clean water gives the economy, the U.S. faces significant challenges in cleaning up the
nation's remaining polluted waterways. "Americans care deeply about their rivers, lakes and
shorelines," said Browner. "A third of all Americans visit coastal areas each year, generating new
jobs and billions of dollars for our economy. However, our summertime traditions continue to be
affected by closed beaches and fish advisories, resulting in lost revenues and public health hazards.
"Although the United States has made tremendous progress cleaning up its water by removing billions
of pounds of pollutants and doubling the number of waterways safe for fishing and swimming, a
majority of Americans live within 10 miles of a polluted lake, river, stream or coastal area," said
Browner. "The Clinton/Gore Administration will soon issue an important new standard to help states
clean up remaining polluted waters across the country." In Liquid Assets 2000, EPA reports:
• A third of all Americans visit coastal areas each year, making a total of 910 million trips
while spending about $44 billion. Each year, millions of additional dollars go to non-
coastal recreational waterways.
• Water used for irrigating crops and raising livestock helps American farmers produce and
sell $197 billion worth of food and fiber each year;
• Manufacturers use more than nine trillion gallons of fresh water every year;
Atlas of America's Polluted Waters
EPA has recently published the Atlas of America's Polluted
Waters, EPA 840-B-00-002, which include maps showing
waters within each state that do not meet state water quality
standards. States listed these waters in their most recent
submission to EPA (generally in 1998) as required by section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. This provision of the Clean
Water Act requires a "total maximum daily load" or TMDL for
each listed water. Over 20,000 waterbodies across the
country are identified as not meeting water quality standards.
These waterbodies include more than 300,000 miles of rivers
and streams and more than 5 million lake acres. The
overwhelming majority of Americans — 218 million — live
within 10 miles of a polluted waterbody. A key feature of the
1998 list of polluted waters is that, for the first time, all states
provided computer-based "geo-referencing" data that allow
consistent mapping of these polluted waters. In order to
better illustrate the extent and seriousness of water pollution
problems around the country, EPA prepared an atlas of state
maps that identifies the polluted waters in each state. The
maps are color coded to indicate the type of pollutant
causing the pollution problem. Bar charts show the types of
pollutants impairing stream, river, and coastal miles, and
lakes, estuary, and wetland acres.
[Copies of the document are available at no charge
from the National Service Center for Environmental
Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419.
Phone: (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190; fax: (513) 489-
8695. A copy of the Atlas has also been posted on EPA's
TMDL web site for browsing and downloading at
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/atlas/index.html.]
12 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
-------
New Report Says • Every year, the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico and coastal areas produce more than 10 billion
Clean Water Is pounds offish and shellfish;
Important to the
Economy * States nave identified almost 300,000 miles of rivers and streams and more than five
(continued) million acres of lakes that do not meet state water quality goals;
• In 1998, about one-third of the 1,062 beaches reporting to EPA had at least one health
advisory or closing; more than 2,500 fish consumption advisories or bans were issued by
states in areas where fish were too contaminated to eat.
[Copies of Liquid Assets 2000: America's Water Resources at a Turning Point, EPA 840-B-OO-OO, are
available on EPA's web site at www.epa.gov/ow/liquidassets or by calling EPA's Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds at (202) 260-7040.]
National Watershed Outreach Conference Hits the Target!
A year of careful planning and scouring the country for innovative, dynamic presenters proved
worth the effort as the National Watershed Outreach Conference was held April 17-19 in San
Diego, California, to rave reviews and an enthusiastic reception from more than 240 participants.
Presentations at the conference covered a diverse spectrum of approaches and addressed every
aspect of local outreach — from theory and planning to production, distribution, and evaluation.
The event provided an excellent opportunity for environmental educators, watershed project
coordinators, and federal, state, and local agency staff from across the nation to learn what works
and what doesn't in the world of watershed outreach.
The conference was a collaborative effort of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds and
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, the Aquatic Outreach Institute (Richmond, California),
the University of California Cooperative Extension/Sea Grant Extension Program, and die County of
San Diego Watershed Working Group. It aimed to provide a forum for a variety of stakeholders to share
varied outreach techniques related to a wide range of watershed issues and motivated attendees to
explore both traditional and nontraditional outreach techniques. And hit the target it did!
As a prelude to the conference, the San Diego Watershed Working Group convened the "San Diego
County Watershed Forum 2000" on the morning of April 17. The Forum highlighted new regional
resources for watershed managers, sponsored discussion on how the constituent organizations which
make up the Working Group might cooperate for mutual benefit, and provided an opportunity to
explore new ways to improve regional watershed management in San Diego. The Forum established a
local focus for the conference and engaged local watershed managers who otherwise might not have
participated in the National Watershed Outreach Conference.
The Forum was followed by several preconference workshops held on Monday afternoon which
provided opportunities for getting specific hands-on information about applying for and obtaining
grants, initiating and developing an outreach program, educating local officials and decisionmakers
about nonpoint source pollution, and developing drinking water source assessments. In perhaps the
most lively workshop, "Get That Grant," Andy Robinson used small group discussions and mini-
projects to demonstrate how to design fundable projects, conduct grants research, develop
relationships with grant officers, and in general become more successful at obtaining grant funding.
Robinson is a grants trainer who has helped to raise more than $4 million in grants and donations.
On Tuesday morning the conference proper started with a bang. Bill Hammond, an assistant
professor in environmental and interdisciplinary studies at Florida Gulf Coast University, launched
the conference with an animated discussion of the lessons about environmental education he has
learned during his many years as a teacher, author, trainer, and general jack-of-all-trades. His
creative and engaging approach to environmental education gave conference participants a renewed
zest and energy for educating the public on watershed issues in a way that would stir them to
action. He emphasized that change can happen only when the broad community itself gets
involved and is committed to the goals and process. He ended his address with a compelling video
clip from the Power of One, a poignant film that affirms how each of us can and does make a
difference when we become engaged and involved.
Bill Hammond, an assistant
professor in environmental
and interdisciplinary studies
of Florida Gulf Coast
University, gave an animated
keynote address on public
outreach tactics.
JULY 2000, ISSUE #61
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 13
-------
National Watershed Many of the presentations during the 3-day conference touched on nonpoint source education and
Outreach Conference outreach. For example, Chris Swann, a watershed planner for the Center for Watershed Protection,
Hits the Target! presented the results of the Center's Survey of Resident Nutrient Behavior in the Chesapeake Bay
(continued) Watershed. Using the survey, the Center determined which outreach techniques appear most
effective in influencing watershed behavior. One conference attendee mentioned that Swann's talk
"will be useful to convince our communities and more technical folks that too often our reports are
too 'techy,' 'jargony,' and bureaucratic!" Another attendee remarked that Swann's research "is key to
our challenges in getting money for effective work."
Susan Beran, a former education specialist for the Redwood-Cottonwood Rivers Control Area, a
rural watershed association in Minnesota, talked about how enticing local residents with coffee and
rolls in an informal setting — a local neighborhood restaurant — had proved to be an effective
method for getting them to attend watershed meetings. These "Coffee on the Project" meetings
have helped the watershed group identify the community's real priorities, as well as key people who
had a real interest in water quality. "By keeping the event local, residents feel very comfortable
saying what is on their minds," said Beran. Maggie Skenderian, a community relations specialist
from the Bureau of Environmental Services in Portland, Oregon, who attended Beran's session,
commented, "I took notes madly and got some great ideas for things I can replicate at home."
Outreach and education continue to be essential components in the fight for watershed protection
and restoration. Without them, even the best technical and well-funded plans will fail for the lack
of broadly based community support. The awareness and support of all elements of the community
alone can sustain the long-term efforts needed to turn watersheds around and keep them
permanently protected. Stu Tuller, of EPA's Nonpoint Source Control Branch, which provided seed
money for the Conference and oversaw the planning, commented, "From the outset we aimed at
providing a conference which would stimulate the state and local practitioners of watershed
protection, the folks who make things happen on the ground. Judging from the energy level in San
Diego and the unsolicited comments we received both during the Conference and since, we hit the
target dead center." The National Watershed Outreach Conference itself was perhaps the most
successful example of outreach as it brought together more than 200 watershed professionals and
weekend warriors from across the country to share the many ways in which they are tackling and
solving problems in their own backyards.
[For more information, contact Stacie Craddock, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 260-3788; fax: (202) 260-1977; e-
mail: craddock.stacie@epa.gov.]
News From the States, Tribes, and Localities
Love and Money: NFS Funds Restore Spawning Habitat
(and other good stuff) for New York State Fish
by Elaine Bloom and Nancy Steubner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
A slender brook trout swims against the fall current. The brookie population in this western New York
stream is recovering after years of low reproduction, but this female still has difficulty locating a mate.
Eventually, a small male appears. Once his size would have prevented him from competing with larger
rivals, but for now this reach is his alone.
Until measures were taken recently to reduce erosion from nearby roads and ditches, trout reproduction
in the stream had been impaired by sedimentation for many years. Now, the stream/low is starting to
wash away the silt that covers much of the gravel streambed needed for spawning. The female digs a
shallow nest in a small section of exposed gravel and releases her eggs. Her mate flicks by above and
fertilizes them. In a moment, both fish are gone, leaving the eggs to develop on their own.
It's 8 p.m., hours after the most of the staff at New York State's Department of Environmental
Conservation have gone home. Down one shadowy hallway, however, people are hunched around a
conference table. They've been assembled since 8 o'clock in the morning, and their faces show it.
14 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JULY 20OO, ISSUE #61
-------
Love and Money:
NFS Funds Restore
Spawning Habitat
(continued)
Fluorescent lights, scribbled notes, half-empty cartons of lo mein, and a bunch of weary
bureaucrats seem a far cry from an aquatic tryst 200 miles away, but the connection is closer than
one might think.
The group is weighing the merits of funding various local water quality projects. Today alone,
they've evaluated over 30 of the more than 800 project applications received in 1999, two-thirds of
them for NPS abatement or aquatic habitat restoration. Flip chart pages festoon the room's walls,
recording the group's often spirited deliberations.
Funded Projects
NPS Implementation projects that have received funding
In previous years Include
* Capturing sediment and floatable debris from New Rochelle storm |
water outlets. (Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation
Management Plan)
A Restoring wetlands that have historically provided an important
fish and wildlife habitat in the Niagara River watershed. (Great
Lakes Management Plan)
* Implementing improved agricultural management techniques at
26 dairies and installing six barnyard wastewater management
systems to protect the Wallkill River watershed. (Hudson River
Management Plan)
* Removing a dike and restoring a sensitive salt marsh in Saw Mill
Creek Park on Staten Island. (New York/New Jersey Harbor
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan)
A Stabilizing the streambank on the Adirondacks' Ausable River to
improve the habitat for fish and aquatic insects. (Lake Champlain
Management Plan)
4 Reducing nutrients entering Hector Falls Creek and the Seneca
Lake watershed by constructing a concrete manure storage
system. (There is currently no comprehensive management plan
for the Finger Lakes and, as a result, Bond Act projects in this
area must be approved by the Commissioner of Environmental
Conservation or the Secretary of State and must be reviewed by
the Finger Lakes Water Quality Review Committee.)
* Mitigating storm water runoff from highways in Suffolk County that
are threatening sensitive shellfish habitats. (Peconic and South
Shore Estuaries)
* Restoring wetland and aquatic habitats at Ocean View Park and
the Tobay/John F. Kennedy Sanctuary (South Shore Estuary)
Planning, technical assistance, and educational projects
recently receiving funding include
* Establishing a statewide training program on on-site wastewater
treatment systems for local code enforcement officers, designers
and installers, community planners, conservation districts, and
state agencies.
* Providing statewide technical and programmatic support for
communities developing stormwater management and erosion
and sediment control plans.
* Providing technical training in stream corridor and wetlands
restoration.Technical assistance and training in developing
comprehensive nutrient management plans on farms.
* Providing the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension's
Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO)
workshops to communities on Long Island.
To fund NPS projects such as those that stop
sediment loading to trout streams, the state has
stirred together a creative blend of monies. The
main "ingredients" in the funding pot are New
York's Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) and
Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and the
incremental section 319 funds awarded as part of an
EPA Performance Partnership Grant (PPG).
The Bond Act has been the largest source of grants
for NPS and aquatic habitat restoration projects
since the law was passed in November 1996. Out of
a total of $ 1.75 billion allocated for environmental
projects, $420 million is split between NPS
abatement and control, aquatic habitat restoration,
and wastewater treatment.
The state legislature established the Environmental
Protection Fund in 1993, and it is primarily
replenished by taxes on land sales, revenues from
sales of state lands, and sale of the state bluebird
license plate. Out of an annual pot of about $ 100
million, approximately $6 million pays for NPS
planning and implementation projects. Since 1996
a total of $22 million of Bond Act and EPF grants
have been committed to NPS implementation or
aquatic habitat restoration projects. Funds come
from EPA through a Performance Partnership
Grant. To receive these funds, New York entered
into an Environmental Performance Partnership
Agreement with EPA. About $2 million in
incremental section 319 funds was used to
implement NPS management measures in more
than 20 NPS projects in 1998 and 1999.
To put the money from each source to its best use,
the state issues an annual call for projects to be
considered for funding. Weeks before the
application deadline, applications from
conservation districts and municipalities begin to
filter into DEC's Division of Water — a tiny rivulet
at first, but building to a torrent in the last frantic
days. In 1999 DEC received more than 400 new
applications and considered an additional 450
revised applications. Paper quickly fills the "War
Room. " Staplers, colored pens, and hole punches
mysteriously disappear from desks in the vicinity,
JULY 2000, ISSUE #61
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 15
-------
Love and Money:
NFS Funds Restore
Spawning Habitat
(continued)
drafted into service for processing applications. Staff from other divisions and field offices drop by
to lend a hand. The copier hums constantly. Finally — sorted, prescreened, coded, photocopied,
stapled, and stacked — the applications are shipped off to DEC field offices for a preliminary
review before the scoring sessions start.
And that is just the beginning. What follows are weeks of meetings with DEC Division of Water
central and regional staff and other divisions with a stake in clean water projects. Two other state
agencies, the Department of State and the Department of Agriculture and Markets, play a part in
evaluating and scoring the applications.
Each project is reviewed, evaluated, scored, and ranked, with four major aspects considered:
1. How severe is the problem being addressed? Projects that address the worst water
resource problems are the highest priority.
2. How likely is this project to improve conditions? Projects must significantly improve
water quality or aquatic habitat.
3. What's the return on the investment? Projects should implement economical,
technically viable, and cost — effective solutions and reflect a community's
comprehensive and coordinated approach to solving water quality problems.
4. How well does it fit with the priorities of the management plan for the area?
Management plans, such as those developed under the National Estuary Program or
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, have been written for seven areas in the
state that together cover more than 50 percent of New York's land. The management
plans identify the environmental priorities for each waterbody protected within them.
After determining whether a project merits financial support, the next task is matching it with an
appropriate funding vehicle. Each funding source has its own specific criteria to determine a
project's eligiblity. For example, only projects that implement practices identified in New York's
NPS Management Practices Catalog and that address management plan priorities are eligible for
Bond Act monies, and PPG funds can be used only in areas identified as needing restoration
through the state's Unified Watershed Assessment.
The different restrictions on spending the funds from each source are somewhat daunting. "It's a
complicated process," acknowledges Phil DeGaetano, Assistant Director of the Division of Water,
"but we've eliminated the need for applicants to try to sift through the various restrictions. We
know how to mix and match funding sources so that the best projects get funded while meeting
the criteria for each funding source."
Another funding source for NPS projects is the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF)
administered by the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, which has provided
$447.5 million for projects like landfill leachate collection, storage facilities for highway deicing
materials, and streambank stabilization.
Education, information, training, and technical assistance that provide a foundation for on-the-
ground projects are another vital part of the NPS picture. Both EPF funds and a certain proportion
of PPG dollars can be used to support NPS planning and educational initiatives, many of which
are proposed by the state's Nonpoint Source Workgroups.
Throughout New York State, this integrated funding mix makes the good things in life possible —
for people and for aquatic creatures. For humans, it could be a leisurely float on a mountain pond,
a full creel, or paddling a sparkling river. For trout, it's cool, oxygenated water, a smorgasbord of
macroinvertebrates, and good spawning habitat. That is the vision that lies dormant between the
lines of every funding application and that energizes the debates about which projects to fund.
New York's diversity of funding sources help bring it to life.
[For more information, contact Gerry Chartier, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233-3502. E-mail: grcharti@gw.dec.state.ny.us.]
16 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JULY 20OO, ISSUE #61
-------
Tribal Watershed Analysis and Management Pilot Project
Four Indian tribes with very different ecosystems are piloting a new method for analyzing and
managing their watersheds. The method uses a series of steps and modules to help a community
analyze and develop the best management approach for its watershed. The approach provides a
unique and effective way to assess the environment, identify problems, establish priorities for
preservation or remedial actions, and implement solutions.
EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds and the American Indian Environmental Office
(AIEO) have collaborated on the project to develop a comprehensive Watershed Analysis and
Management (WAM) methodology that addresses tribal watershed management issues. The objective
is to produce a custom-tailored watershed analysis and management framework that includes
geographically specific analytical assessment methods and application techniques for addressing a
wide range of tribal environmental issues. The goal is to develop a well-defined process which
recognizes the explicit objectives of multiple stakeholders and results in watershed management plans
that reflect cultural values, economic impacts, and critical environmental resources. WAM analyses
examine the impacts of existing and proposed land management activities such as timber harvest,
agriculture, and development on valued resources like water quality and sensitive species.
Four tribes were selected to pilot the methodology: Penobscot Nation in Maine, Prairie Band of
Potawatomi in Kansas, White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona, and Quinault Indian Nation in
Washington. Each tribal pilot is implementing a WAM development addressing issues within its
watershed with a level of analysis appropriate to its task and the resources available. The
development of WAM and pilot applications began in 1997 and will be completed this month.
Currently, the pilot method is in use by the tribes and has led to specific restoration and
environmental protection projects.
The WAM program involves a series of steps and modules that call for input and analysis from the
tribe or community affected. Thus, the program reflects the community's concerns and particular
situations that occur at the specific location. Jonathan Long, coordinator of the White Mountain
Apache Tribe's effort, noted, "WAM is a framework for collecting and organizing information that
helps you see connections that you would miss through inventory alone." Tammis Coffin, project
leader for the Penobscot Nation added, "WAM is a system of logic for looking at the watershed in a
holistic way."
WAM involves the following five steps:
1. Scoping (identify stakeholders, issues)
2. Assessment (acquire date, analyze)
3. Synthesis (integrate the assessments)
4. Prescriptions (develop solutions)
5. Adaptive Management (monitor, modify)
To accommodate a wide range of problems, the process can be carried out at two levels of detail.
The first level, called the characterization level, relies primarily on existing information without
supplementary field data. This level of analysis provides a rapid means of assessing a watershed and
establishing priorities using the five steps. For example, level 1 provides effective ways to address
Unified Watershed Assessments (UWAs) under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Level 2 requires more quantitative assessments in each of the five steps. It involves acquisition of
supplemental field data and use of detailed analysis modules. This is the level used for comprehensive
analysis of a watershed where major economic and/or environmental issues are at stake. Level 2 is also
the level appropriate for developing TMDLs. A series of Process Modules (Erosion, Channel,
Hydrology, and Vegetation) and Resource Modules (Water Quality, Aquatic, and Community
(Cultural) Resources) assist in the analysis. The Community Resources Module is modified for state
and nontribal applications; all other modules remain the same.
JULY 20OO, ISSUE #61 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 17
-------
Tribal Watershed The WAM team assisted in development and training for the Clean Water Action Plan, UWA
Analysis and Nationwide Tribal Workshops held in 1999. More comprehensive tribal WAM workshops are
Management planned for the future that will use the WAM framework and provide hands-on guidance to
ruOl rroject address tribal environmental problems and to acquire funding from a variety of sources, such as
( inue ) EPA, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Workshops
will focus on specific tribal environmental problems and practical applications appropriate the
tribal resources and needs. The WAM tribal pilots will provide leadership for the workshops.
A related effort, The Watershed Approach to Tribal TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads), is
being undertaken with the Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona. This effort provides a new
capability to integrate the TMDL process into the watershed approach and will facilitate tribal
preparation of TMDLs, an emerging tribal requirement.
[For more information, contact Martin Brossman, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (4503F),
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202)260-7023; e-mail:
brossman.martin@epa.gov.]
League of Women Voters Flood the Market with
NFS Education in Colorado
The pure mountain streams everyone thinks of as being synonymous with Colorado have gained a
powerful ally. The League of Women Voters (LWV) of Colorado Education Fund, which is funded
by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment through an EPA grant, is blitzing
the state with information on how Coloradans unknowingly contribute to water pollution,
reminding them that it is up to them to help protect their water resources. Project organizers felt
that the time was right to educate the residential audience of Colorado to help prevent the serious
water pollution problems that other states are already facing.
Under the guise of the Colorado Water Protection Project (CWPP), which LWV established to
implement the project, LWV barraged Coloradan couch potatoes in the Spring of 1999 with a 30-
second television ad explaining the problem. The ad aired repeatedly over a 10-day period,
reaching approximately 90 percent of adult viewers in the Colorado area. A simultaneous public
relations campaign supported the effort; Governor Bill Owens even designated the week as
polluted runoff prevention week.
The ad and the proclamation served as a hook to get press coverage in both of the state's large daily
newspapers. The Denver Post ran an educational editorial titled "The Enemy Within," which
spelled out the problem and the solution; another article, "Household Pollution Finally Gaining
Notice," appeared in the Rocky Mountain News.
Meanwhile project spokespeople were interviewed on TV stations around the state, and thousands
of metro Denver residents read ads on the outside of buses cleverly showing how motor oil,
fertilizer, and pet waste affect water quality. LWV also developed a flyer and a series of articles
explaining the role of residents in preventing NPS pollution for companies like Coors and U.S.
West to distribute to their employees.
All over the state, local branches of LWV manned booths at Earth Day celebrations and county
fairs to answer questions and hand out educational materials on NPS issues. LWV also worked
with local utility companies to include flyers in their monthly utility bill mailouts.
Success Realized
Based on about 600 random phone surveys of Coloradans before and after the attention-grabbing
media and PR blitz, two of the three goals were deemed successful. Residents who recalled
receiving information about household-generated polluted runoff were more aware about what
runoff is and what they can do to prevent pollution. However, respondents did not fully
understand how polluted runoff enters local rivers, lakes, and streams.
A dramatic increase in the number of hits on the CWPP web site (www.ourwater.org) and a
corresponding spike in the number of phone calls to the toll-free information clearinghouse, where
18 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
-------
League of Women a newly developed database lists additional resources, proved that the media blitz achieved its goal.
Voters Flood the "It was exciting and gratifying to see that the conclusions of the survey quantified the results of the
Market with NFS effort that had been put into the project," said project manager Cynthia Peterson.
Education in
Coloradot ^ne Pr°Ject was funded by grants from EPA, but because the budget was limited for such a large-
(continued) sca^e project, a Denver advertising firm agreed to design and develop the television ad pro bono.
The ads ran again this past April, and League members across the state once again planned local
supporting activities to reinforce the project message: "It's our water, Colorado. Let's be careful
what we put into it." The year 2000 advertising campaign ran for two weeks and included
emphasis on LWV's third goal — how polluted runoff enters local rivers, lakes, and streams.
[For more information, contact Cynthia Peterson, Project Manager, Colorado Water Protection Project, The
League of Women Voters of Colorado Education Fund, 1410 Grant Street, Suite B204, Denver, CO 80203.
Phone: (303) 861-5195; e-mail: cwpp2@aol.com, web site: www.cwpp.org.]
Notes on Watershed Management
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Programs —
Are They Good Enough?
Are existing nonpoint source pollution abatement finance programs adequate to address NPS
pollution problems in the United States? The Northeast-Midwest (NEMW) Institute in
Washington, DC, and the Marine Studies Consortium (MSC) in Needham, Massachusetts, believe
that more could be done to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and integration of the nearly $2
billion in annual federal expenditures for NPS abatement.
The two organizations conducted the Nonpoint Finance Project to investigate how NPS programs
might be improved. The project, funded by the Joyce Foundation, centered on two forums — one
in Chicago, Illinois, in October 1999 and one in Baltimore, Maryland, in January 2000. The
forums brought diverse stakeholders together, including representatives from the regulated
community, government entities, and environmental and agricultural organizations, as well as
funding program managers, finance experts, and academic authorities. At each forum, the
stakeholders debated and discussed current NPS programs and funding sources.
Project managers developed a report (available on the Internet at www.nemw.org) that outlines the
recommendations put forth by forum participants and other stakeholders. They anticipate that the
project could influence changes in law, regulation, finance mechanisms, and technical assistance
programs. "The report is a menu of what to try and not to try at the state level. Many people just
don't understand the possibilities that are available," explained Roger Stern, executive director of
the Marine Studies Consortium.
Innovative Financing Mechanisms Considered by the
Nonpoint Finance Project Forums
The project report outlines various innovative financing mechanisms considered by the forum
participants. It details discussion points for each mechanism, including validity, barriers to
implementation, and potential landowner acceptance or adoption. Please consult the final report
for more information about each of the following mechanisms:
Leverage Federal Land Retirement Programs to Acquire Permanent Easements. Leverage funds
from programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to purchase easements to
permanently remove environmentally sensitive land from production, instead of relying solely on
transitory 10- to 15-year CRP contracts. "Although an easement purchase would require a 20 to 30
percent state-funded premium on top of the federal CRP payment, the conservation benefits
would be permanent instead of temporary," noted Stern. "The absence of permanent conservation
benefits from the $1.3 billion annual CRP outlays is the largest inefficiency in any federal
environmental spending program."
Use Revenue Bonds and Up-Front, Lump-Sum Payments to Promote Permanent Easements. Upon
enrollment in the CRP, a landowner removes environmentally sensitive land from production for
JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 19
-------
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Abatement
Programs —
Are They Good
Enough?
(continued)
10 to 15 years in exchange for annual rental payments from the federal government. In this
mechanism, the landowner receives an up-front, lump-sum CRP payment in exchange for selling a
permanent easement. Because the federal government cannot provide this option, a state would
have to grant bonding authority to a third party (such as a non-profit) or contract with an
organization that already has bonding authority. A private corporation could also initiate a bond
program. The third party would issue a revenue bond to fund the landowner's up-front payment.
The state or the third party would hold the easement. The bond would be retired by the CRP
payments the farmer had exchanged.
Create a Nonprofit River/Wetland Restoration Project. Create a nonprofit organizations to direct a
unified approach to NPS pollution, helping to focus local, state, and federal efforts.
Use Nonprofits as a Source of Financing and Promoting NPS Abatement. Encourage nonprofit
organizations to help fund NPS abatement efforts.
Provide State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loans Through Local Banks. Allow landowners to get SRF-
backed loans from banks to help them fund their cost-share requirements under various federal
NPS programs.
Offer Insurance to Protect Farmers from Perceived Risks ofBMPs. Offer farmers BMP insurance to
reduce the incentive to overapply chemicals and reduce the risk associated with implementing a
BMP. For example, farmers without BMP insurance might not implement a nutrient BMP if they
are afraid it might reduce their crop yields. (See News-Notes Issue #58 for more information on
BMP insurance.)
Use Water and Sewer Authorities as a Source of NPS Funding. Encourage municipalities to fund
NPS abatement efforts within their watershed to avoid costlier drinking water or wastewater
infrastructure.
Offer Bonus Payments to Encourage Implementation ofBMPs. State NPS agencies could offer
bonus payments when certain NPS abatement participation goals are met, thereby increasing
awareness of and participation in abatement efforts.
Allow State Revolving Fund Arbitrage to Finance NPS Abatement Efforts. Federal law should be
amended to allow states to realize arbitrage earnings on collateral reserves. The earnings from
limited arbitrage would provide additional funds for NPS abatement efforts.
Leverage CRP Land to Promote BMPs via Drought Risk Management. Include a provision in CRP
contracts on nonriparian, less erodible land that allows limited access for forage in times of severe
drought. This provision would allow neighboring landowners who implement BMPs on their land
to mow or graze the fallow CRP land when a drought reduces foraging capacity of their existing
pastures. The risks posed by cattle on CRP land might be acceptable when compared to the
benefits of enticing neighboring landowners to implement BMPs.
Carbon Sequestration by Utilities. Pass legislation that will provide industries "carbon credits" for
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Encourage utilities to obtain credits by paying landowners
to plant trees that will sequester carbon.
What Should Be Done First?
During the forums' discussion about potential finance mechanisms, project managers also identified
several recurring themes that impede NPS abatement efforts. In response, the managers put forth
three proposals in the report that build on the innovative mechanisms discussed and fill current voids
that exist in BMP financing method availability and landowner incentive opportunities.
First, forum discussions frequently centered around third parties, such as water utilities, that have a
vested interest in promoting water quality but are largely untapped as financial resources for NPS
abatement efforts. Project managers suggest that changes to the Farm Bill be considered that allow
water utilities to enter into enhanced CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) land retirement
program agreements with the federal government to protect their water quality. Current law
requires that utilities gain approval from the state legislature, a barrier that deters many utilities
from using CREP as an NPS pollution abatement tool.
20 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
-------
Nonpoint Source Second, managers learned that landowners will be more willing to use sensitive riparian land in an
Pollution Abatement environmentally sound way if owners can continue to earn some economic benefit from the land.
Programs — As a result, project managers propose that the federal government should fund a comprehensive
Are They Good study of potential economic uses for retired land. Income options on environmentally sensitive
nou9 • lancj w;n make landowners more likely to implement BMPs.
(continued)
Third, managers learned that national NFS abatement suffers from the lack of a unified effort to
reduce nonpoint source pollution. To achieve this unified approach, project managers proposed
creation of a nonprofit organization to promote land retirement/easement acquisition programs
among states, educate stakeholders about the innovative finance mechanisms, and engage in
limited restoration efforts on riparian land.
Long-term Goals
Although the MSC and NEMW are seeking funds to continue their NFS finance work, the current
report is a good first step. Project managers hope that cooperating organizations will use the report
to stimulate change by educating and gaining the support of state technical committees, federal
agencies, and the agricultural and environmental communities. Project managers anticipate that
the report's recommendations could influence changes in law, regulation, finance mechanisms, and
technical assistance programs. Because the recommendations will have been made by a
representative crosssection of stakeholders, project cooperaters hope that changes not only will
improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and integration of NFS finance programs, but also will meet
the needs of the majority.
[For more information, contact Roger Stem, Executive Director, Marine Studies Consortium, 83 Chapel
Street, Needham, MA 02492. Phone: (781)444-3643; e-mail: rjstern@earthlink.net.]
Innovative Financing Training Available
The Environmental Finance Center (EFC) at the University of Maryland offers training workshops
that focus on combining financial and technical assistance programs with innovative financing
techniques to support watershed management. The EFC believes that watershed management
presents a unique opportunity to leverage the resources of one public or private organization with
another in the interest of holistic environmental management. Training course information is
located on the Internet at the address noted below.
With support from EPA and the University of Maryland Sea Grant College, the EFC was
established to help local communities find creative ways to pay for environmental projects. The
EFC promotes alternative and innovative ways to manage the cost of environmental activities,
provides training and development opportunities in environmental management, and works to
increase the public and private sector s awareness of the benefits associated with sound
environmental management policies.
[For more information, please contact Elizabeth Mickey, Coordinator, Environmental Finance Center,
University of Maryland, 0112 Skinner Hall, College Park, MD 20742. Phone: (301) 405-6383: E-mail:
efc@mdsg.umces.edu: Internet: ttp://mdsg.umd.edu/EFC/)
A Survey of Residential Nutrient Behavior
by Heather Holland, Center for Watershed Protection
Educational efforts to increase awareness of nutrient management strategies to protect water quality
are relatively new, but anecdotal evidence suggests that such prevention programs are the most
cost-effective nutrient reduction strategies in developed and developing urban areas. Several
communities in the Chesapeake Bay region have implemented nutrient education programs to
protect water resources from excessive nutrient loading. In particular, many of the tributary
strategies developed for the Chesapeake Bay emphasize some form of urban nutrient management
education. These education programs are still in their infancy, however, and not much is known
about their effectiveness in actually reducing nutrient loads.
As a means of assessing the effectiveness of current educational efforts in the Chesapeake Bay
region, the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) recently completed an analysis of existing
JULY 2000, ISSUE #61 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 21
-------
A Survey of Residential nutrient education programs and their ability to change the nutrient behaviors of the average
Nutrient Behavior resident. More than 700 Chesapeake Bay residents were surveyed concerning their nutrient
(continued) practices in three areas (lawn care, septic system maintenance, and pet waste disposal) that
contribute pollutants to local waters. Through this survey, CWP gauged the knowledge of Bay area
residents regarding practices to control nutrient runoff in stormwater, determined which outreach
methods work best at attracting residents' attention, assessed the effectiveness of current efforts to
spread the nutrient management message, and established recommendations for creating better,
more effective nutrient education programs.
And indeed, the survey provided revealing insights on residents' behaviors and attitudes toward
nutrient management. Regarding lawn care, the survey discovered that althought 91 percent of
residents with yards maintained their own lawns or yards, 64 percent indicated that they had not
obtained advice or information on lawn management issues such as watering, fertilizing,
composting, or establishing turf. Residents generally overfertilized; most residents who fertilized
simply consulted the fertilizer product label to determine the proper application level for their lawn
or, worse, decided for themselves how much fertilizer was needed. Despite the value of testing in
determining the appropriate amount of fertilizer needed, 84 percent of respondents hod not
received or performed a soil nutrient test on their lawns in the last three years.
The survey also indicated that a significant number of Bay area residents do not fully understand
the relationship between a properly maintained septic system and the water quality of the
Chesapeake Bay is not fully understood by. A full 50 percent of those surveyed who used on-site
disposal systems had not had their systems inspected in the last three years, and 46 percent of those
surveyed had not had the system cleaned in the last three years. The low number of septic owners
seeking advice on septic maintenance indicates that they know very little about the link between
water quality and septic failure. The absence of interest in septic system impacts might be caused
by the perception that maintenance procedures for septic systems are too expensive or are not
necessary on a regular basis for the system to function properly. In fact, the phone survey responses
indicate a general lack of understanding of the maintenance required to ensure a properly
functioning septic system.
Where pet waste is concerned, the biggest problem revealed by the survey is that many residents do
not perceive dog droppings as a water quality issue. Of Bay area dog owners, 56 percent personally
walked their own dog, and less dian half of them claimed to pick up after their dog all the time. A full
34 percent of dog walkers admitted that they rarely or never picked up after their dog or refused to
answer the question entirely. More tellingly, 37 percent of dog walkers did not agree or expressed no
knowledge when asked if pet waste could contribute nutrients to local water bodies. Obviously, a
stronger connection between pet waste and water quality needs to be established before nutrient
education efforts can hope to change deeply rooted behaviors like refusing to clean up after one's dog.
A major goal of the study was to gauge residents' attitudes toward current outreach methods.
Unfortunately, sharp differences exist between the outreach techniques that residents hear and
respond to and the outreach techniques program managers actually use. Of the 14 techniques from
which residents could choose, television-related outreach occupied three of the top seven spots.
Newspaper columns or advertisements were also effective, as were community or city newsletters.
Outreach techniques that required more particpatory effort seemed to be popular with a small
segment of the local residents, but of little or no interest to a much larger portion of the population.
However, although television and television advertisements were consistently rated as the most
popular techniques for receiving water quality messages, television outreach was one of the least
used outreach techniques, according to program managers. One explanation is that limited budget
resources prevent most programs from using television. Brochures/flyers and training workshops
because they are relatively inexpensive to produce when compared to purchasing advertising space
or producing videos.
Although Marylanders consider themselves to be more environmentally aware than ever, many
people don't fully understand the hydrologic connection between their yard, the street, the storm
sewer, and streams: people who wouldn't dream of tossing a bottle out the car window don't think
22 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
-------
A Survey of Residential twice about hosing grease off their cars into the street. And although these actions may seem fairly
Nutrient Behavior inconsequential by themselves, they add up. CWP's conservative estimations of residential polluters
(continued) in Maryland place the number of households guilty of overfertilizing at 1.7 million. Add in
approximately 760,000 bad dog-walkers, 1.3 million chronic car washers, 2 million pesticide
sprayers, and another 760,000 septic slackers, and it's easy to see how our waters get so dirty.
[For more information, contact the Center for Watershed Protection, 8391 Main Street, Ellicott City, MD
21043. Phone: (410) 461-8323; fax: (410) 461-8324; e-mail: center@cwp.org or visit the CWP web site at
www.cwp.org for condensed summaries of this and other publications.]
National Effluent Guidelines for the Construction and
Development Industry in the Works
EPA is planning to identify minimum requirements for erosion and sediment control and
stormwater runoff best management practices employed by land developers, home builders,
builders of commercial and industrial property, and other private and public construction site
owners and operators. The construction and development (C&D) industry is subject to widely
varying requirements in different state and local jurisdictions. If adequate runoff controls are not in
place, construction sites can discharge large amounts of sediment, nutrients, and associated
pollutants to receiving waters.
The new regulations, known as "effluent guidelines," will apply to construction activities associated
with new development and redevelopment activities. The regulations will address stormwater runoff
from construction sites during the active phase of construction, as well as postconstruction runoff.
Impacts of Stormwater Runoff
Water quality problems that are the result of construction and development activities are the
impetus for the new guidelines. Sediment loadings from construction sites can be orders of
magnitude higher than those associated with undisturbed areas. Construction and development
runoff can also result in discharges of nutrients, metals, and other pollutants that can contribute to
water quality degradation. In addition to contributing pollutants, the increased runoff volumes and
flow rates produced as a result of development can cause significant degradation of receiving stream
quality. Impacts include streambed scouring and habitat degradation, shoreline erosion and stream
bank widening, thermal impacts, loss offish populations and sensitive aquatic species, increased
frequency of downstream flooding, and aesthetic degradation.
Effluent Guidelines Background
Effluent guidelines are national technology-based standards for categories of point source dischargers.
EPA develops the regulations pursuant to Title III of the Clean Water Act, and the standards are
implemented in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The standards
are based on the performance of control and treatment technologies, with consideration of the costs
associated with implementing the technologies. The effluent guidelines will complement die existing
NPDES Phase I and II stormwater permit regulations, and they will typically be incorporated into
the construction general permits issued by states and EPA regional offices.
Best Management Practices and Relationship to NPDES Regulations
EPA intends to evaluate the inclusion of design and maintenance criteria as minimum
requirements for a variety of BMPs used at construction sites to prevent or mitigate the impacts of
storm water runoff on surface water quality. Current requirements for construction site BMPs vary
around the United States. The range from local erosion and sediment control programs that
require detailed site plans and BMP specifications to few or no requirements.
EPA also intends to develop effectiveness and applicability criteria for BMPs used to manage
postconstruction runoff. By incorporating more site designs that are more protective of water
quality during the planning phase of projects, postconstruction runoff impacts can be minimized
substantially.
JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 23
-------
National Effluent BMPs used during C&D activities include temporary control measures, permanent control
Guidelines for the measures, and low-impact land use practices. Temporary control measures include sediment
Construction and trapping devices such as silt fences, vegetated filter strips, and sediment basins, and erosion control
Development Industry devices such as mulching, temporary revegetation, and the application of erosion control mats and
blankets. These measures are used primarily to prevent the loss of soil during the active phase of
(continued) n u • • i cc r •
construction. Permanent measures that remain in place to manage runorr after construction
activities have ended include structural BMPs such as extended detention wet ponds, constructed
wetland systems, and sand filters. Low-impact development practices can be incorporated into a
site design during the planning phase of the project. Examples include limiting the amounts of
impervious surfaces created, preserving stream buffers and sensitive areas such as natural wetlands
and riparian corridors, limiting disturbance of soil and vegetation, and maintaining the natural
infiltrative capacity of an area through the use of biofiltration.
EPA intends to consider the merits and performance of all appropriate management measures that
can be used to reduce impacts from C&D activities. The Agency does not intend to require use of
particular BMPs at specific sites, but plans to assist builders in selecting BMPs by publishing data
on the performance to be expected of various BMP types. The new guideline will build on the
successes of some of the effective state and local programs currently in place around the country
and will establish nationwide criteria to drive BMP selection, design, implementation, and
maintenance. They will enhance the menu of BMPs scheduled for release by EPA under the
NPDES Phase II storm water rule in October 2000.
Relationship to Existing Permit Requirements
Many construction sites are currently subject to NPDES permit requirements. Under the NPDES
Phase I storm water rule (promulgated in 1990), construction sites of five or more acres must be
covered by either a general permit or an individual permit. Permittees are required to develop
storm water pollution prevention plans that include descriptions of BMPs employed, although
actual BMP selection and design are at the discretion of permittees (in conformance with
applicable state or local requirements). EPA recently extended the permit coverage to sites from one
to five acres under the new Phase II rule.
Stakeholder Involvement
EPA relies extensively on the participation of stakeholders as it develops effluent guidelines. The
Agency is currently gathering a wide range of technical, economic, and environmental impact
information for the development of the rule and is actively working with industry, citizen groups,
state and local governments, other federal agencies, and researchers.
EPA welcomes suggestions on the development of the new effluent guidelines and is particularly
interested in receiving data and information on the performance of erosion and sediment control
programs and BMPs. The schedule for release of the new guideline has not been set. However,
information on the schedule and other aspects of the C&D project is available on the Internet at
www.epa.gov/OST/guide/construction.
[For additional background on BMPs, see EPA's Preliminary Data Summary on Urban Storm
Water Best Management Practices, EPA-821-R-99-012, which is available on EPA's web site at
www.epa.gov/OST/stormwater. For further information or to submit comments on the Construction and
Development effluent guidelines, contact Eric Strassler, Project Manager, Engineering and Analysis
Division (4303), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 260-7150; e-mail:
strassler. eric@epa.gov.]
Notes on Education
"Pipes to Ponds" Curriculum Brings Local Water Issues Home
When Haily Summerford researched the science curricula of schools in Fort Worth, Texas, she
found syllabus topics on water quality in locations as far away as Panama. However, none of the
textbooks or case studies mentioned the much-debated issues of supply, quality, and management
of the water running into students' homes and schools. This gap, she decided, was the opportune
24 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
-------
"Pipes to Ponds" place to insert an educational component on the EPA Storm Water Permit to be administered in
Curriculum their city. With funding from EPA, she and four local teachers authored a curricular module called
Brings Local Water "Pipes to Ponds" for general high school science and social studies/geography classes.
, .. ,, The module is designed so that students make the important leap from the academic to the local
and immediate. They study issues that water managers in their city have to deal with and, like
them, have to develop contested but workable solutions. In four consecutive units, each with its
own lab and extension work, the module addresses a range of state-mandated curricular goals,
including science lab work, writing skills, oral presentations, investigative and book research,
critical thinking, and collaborative problem solving.
Students start off learning differences in the infrastructure of waste and storm water management and
then work with topographical maps to delineate watersheds. With a sense of both the natural and
man-made movement of water, students proceed to the impact of pollution on water. In a unit called
"But the Fish Don't Look That Bad!" they study local Lake Como, which currently has a fishing ban
in effect because of elevated toxic organics from polluted runoff. Through exercises that look at the
spatial location of and impacts from storm drains, research using water quality documents, and lab
sampling to identify macroinvertebrates and dissolved organics, students develop a picture of the
complex way in which water pollution has become a problem for their lake. For example, the storm
drain exercises evoke in students the multifaceted nature of nonpoint source pollution. In particular,
they learn how individual actions or negligence all over city neighborhoods can cumulatively lead to
pollution of Lake Como.
As the culmination of their study of water systems, students prepare a panel meeting similar to a
local public hearing on supply management. Fort Worth's prospects of water scarcity loom large in
their future, and resolving water allocation issues is an imaginative but realistic forum to develop
students' awareness. Students role-play issues and concerns from manufacturers, farmers,
government officials, and citizens. City council members (also played by students) listen to the
debate and then vote on the issue at hand. The exercise propels the students to weigh the
importance and relevance of the various actors tugging at a limited resource and, further, invites
their reflection on how they, and their immediate society, use it up.
The program is in its pilot phase and is awaiting both student and teacher evaluations. By next fall
it should be a full-fledged part of the curriculum in the 14 Fort Worth high schools. So, Fort
Worth city water managers should be listening: your high school students might come up with
some creative solutions to your city's water issues.
[For more information contact Haily Summerford, City of Fort Worth, Department of Environmental
Management, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102. Phone: (817) 871-8570: fax: (817) 871-
6359; e-mail: summerh@ci. fort-worth, tx. us.]
Cooperative Extension Educates Suburbanites
on Lawns and Landscapes
Spring Fling doesn't mean "time to fling the fertilizer." That is just one of the things the Prince
William Unit of the Virginia Cooperative Extension taught homeowners at their "Spring Fling
2000, Lawn and Landscape Extravaganza." The Extravaganza, held at the Prince William County
Fairgrounds on April 29, focused on environmentally friendly ways to care for the home landscape.
Prince William County is a rapidly growing suburb of Washington, DC. The county population,
estimated to be 275,000 in 1999, has almost doubled since 1980 and is predicted to grow by
another 50 percent by 2020. Once primarily an agricultural county, the area has been converted to
the typical suburban landscapes rapidly expanding from most of our large metropolitan areas.
Accordingly, the Cooperative Extension has had to slowly change its nonpoint source pollution
prevention focus from agricultural fields to residential lawns and parking lots.
Luckily, the citizens of Prince William County are eager to learn how to improve their lawns and
landscapes. "People in our community are hungry for information," notes Susan DeBolt, Extension
Agent. "We weren't able to teach enough classes to satisfy the need last year." In fact, the Spring
JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 25
-------
Cooperative
Extension Educates
Suburbanites
on Lawns and
Landscapes
(continued)
Fling grew out of the success of a turf management workshop the Cooperative Extension held last
fall. "Over a hundred people attended, which was many more than we expected. We received quite
a bit of positive feedback. After that, the Spring Fling was just waiting to happen."
Diverse Educational Topics Offered
The Extravaganza focused on educating homeowners about how they can improve their lawn and
landscape environment. By reducing the amount of chemicals applied and incorporating
groundcovers and other alternative vegetation, homeowners will find that they'll not only attract
birds and wildlife, but will also be able to save money by reducing the amount of water, fertilizers,
and pesticides they apply each year.
More than 40 educational exhibitors offered information on topics ranging from water gardens to
the use of BMPs such as integrated pest management (IPM) techniques. Master Gardeners was on
hand to demonstrate how to incorporate native plants, ornamental grasses, herbs, groundcovers,
and drought-tolerant plantings into the landscape. They also offered an all-day plant clinic for the
public to bring in samples of their ailing plants for diagnosis and treatment suggestions.
Organizations such as the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the National
Wildlife Federation explained how using alternative planting can increase visiting wildlife. Other
exhibits included tips on amending soil, caring for a lawn, using BMPs on a lawn, identifying
weeds; proper tree-planting techniques; and instruction on grafting.
The Extravaganza offers education and enjoyment for outdoor enthusiasts of all ages. "We have had
nine different educational activities for children, plus some that both kids and adults liked,"
explained Ms. DeBolt. A couple of exhibits focused on children's fascination with insects. One
exhibit, targeted at both children and parents, introduced the difference between beneficial and
pest insects and provide nontoxic ways to deal with them. Next, children and parents both jumped
when they saw the hissing cockroach and other bug pets presented by the Bug Box, a local
environmentally concerned exterminator. Other activities included investigating compost at "Wally
Worm's Playground" and learning about vascular and nonvascular plants.
Ann Bell, a Prince William County resident who attended the event, said, ""We had a great time! I
appreciated the accessibility of the Master Gardeners. They offered several suggestions for a
number of problems that I face in my own home landscape, and I learned quite a bit about
horticulture and alternative landscaping that I didn't know before. They inspired me to try to
reduce the amount of grass in my yard!"
Planning the Event
The Extravaganza serves as a model for similar efforts in other suburban areas throughout the
country. Ms. DeBolt emphasized that although coordination and persistence have been necessary,
planning the event hasn't been overwhelming. "We put this together in a relatively short period of
time — we didn't even start planning until November. It has not seemed too difficult because it has
been such a team effort, with every team member shouldering some of the work."
The exhibitors were drawn primarily through direct contact and word of mouth. "Our Master Gard-
eners enthusiastically joined in. Also, we had our friends contact their friends," noted Ms. DeBolt. To
get the interest of the public, the Cooperative Extension issued a press release that was featured in
many local papers. Signs were also posted in locations around the communities. "Public interest was
tremendous. We had more than 1,200 adults and 300 children. We were tickled!" said Ms. DeBolt.
The cost of the Extravaganza is largely offset by local donations and volunteers. Partial support is
provided by the Prince William County Department of Public Works and the Virginia Department
of Conservation and Recreation. "They see a great potential for outreach through this event,"
explained Ms. DeBolt. Any additional costs incurred were funded by vendors, who were asked to
pay a $25 fee to participate. Vendors were invited to sell plants and other landscaping materials,
showcase their landscaping tools, or sell food and beverages. To attract vendors, the Cooperative
Extension sent out more than 200 letters and followed up with personal phone calls or visits.
Between 20 and 30 vendors participated.
26 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
-------
Cooperative Extension As Prince William County continues to grow, more land is being converted from forestland or
Educates Suburbanites agricultural land to manicured landscape or impervious surface. The Cooperative Extension
on Lawns and continually strives to address the resulting environmental problems, including increased nonpoint
Landscapes source runoff and loss of plant and animal communities. The "Spring Fling 2000, Lawn and Land-
(Continuea) scape Extravaganza" is an efficient, entertaining way to reach out to the ever-expanding community
and help many citizens make their landscape more beautiful and environmentally friendly.
[For more information, contact Susan DeBolt, Extension Agent, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Prince
William County Office, 8033Ashton Avenue, Suite 105, Manassas, VA 20109-8202. Phone: (703) 792-
6285; e-mail: sdebolt@pwcgov.org.]
Reviews and Announcements
What's a Billabong? Find the Answer in This Fun Lake Guide
Whether you're trying to figure out what makes your lake stink or what TDS means, you'll find the
answer in The Lake Pocket Book, a new science-for-the-citizen book from the Terrene Institute.
Laugh at the cartoons as you enjoy the book's plain English explanations of aquatic chemistry, the
Five Kingdoms, your lake's biotic zones, trophic states, and more.
Recognizing that "people, not science alone, determine the ultimate fate of your lake," scientists
Martin Kelly of the South Florida Water Management District and Nancy Phillips of the
University of New Hampshire collaborated with a journalist and an editor to write this fun-to-read
116-page guide to understanding and managing your lake. And you'll find a bonus at the end with
a reprint of the acclaimed Organizing a Lake Association, Terrene's practical guide to working with
your neighbors to protect your lake.
"Take it with you, tuck it in your pocket," advises Jo Lynn Traub, director of EPA Region 5's Water
Division, which helped produce the Pocket Book. You'll pull it out to find answers to just about
anything that puzzles you about your lake.
[The Lake Pocket Book is $14.95 (plus $4.50 shipping and handling) from the Terrene Institute,
terrinst@aol.com or (800) 726-5253; 4 Heroert St., Alexandria, VA 22305; www.terrene.org.]
Building Blocks for Emerging Environmental Non-Profit Organizations:
Lessons from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation recently released this exciting new grassroots training manual
containing valuable information on citizen involvement in habitat restoration and lobbying,
fundraising for conservation, and techniques used by the Foundation's award-winning
environmental education program. According to coauthor Jay Sherman, "This book helps
nonprofit conservation organizations be more effective in their communities. It contains proven
methods that can help any group."
Directory of Funding Sources for Grassroots River and Watershed Conservation
Groups in New England and New York 1999-2000
This directory is now available from River Network's web site at www.rivernetwork.org/nedirect.
Designed expressly for members of the river and watershed conservation community in New
England and New York, it includes profiles of foundations, corporations, state and federal agencies,
and other nonprofits that support small, nonprofit watershed groups.
Two New Low-Impact Development Manuals
Low-Impact Development: An Integrated Design Approach
(Prince George's County, Maryland, Department of Environmental Resources, Programs and
Planning Division, EPA 841-B-00-003, January 2000) This guidance manual was prepared for local
planners, engineers, developers, and officials to describe how to develop and implement LID methods
JULY 2000, ISSUE #61 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 27
-------
from an integrated design perspective. The LID principles discussed address runoff issues associated widi
new residential, commercial, and industrial suburban development in Prince Georges County,
Maryland. The manual describes how LID can achieve stormwater control through die creation of
hydrologically functional landscape that mimics die natural hydrologic regime.
Low-Impact Development Hydrologic Analysis
(Prince George's County, Maryland, Department of Environmental Resources, Programs and
Planning Division, EPA 841-B-00-002, January 2000) This manual, the companion document to
the LID design manual, contains a methodology that can be used to estimate changes in site
hydrology due to new development and also to design appropriate treatment systems to maintain
the predevelopment hydrology of the site. It also provides computational procedures used to
determine low-impact development stormwater management requirements.
[To order either document, contact the National Service Center for Environmental Publications, P.O. Box
424 19, Cincinnati, OH 45242 — 24 19. Phone: (800) 490 — 9198; fax: (5 13) 489 — 8695, web site:
www.epa.gov/ncepihom/index.html.]
Recipes for Clean Water: A Homeowner's Stormwater Survival Guide
Published by the Clean Water Task Force in Minneapolis, Minnesota, this cookbook of recipes for
cleaning up stormwater was presented to the homeowners of Minneapolis, "where property values
depend on the maintenance of recreational water quality." Chapters with catchy titles like "The End
of Lawns as We Mow Them: Landscaping to Eliminate Runoff" and "Pet Peeves - See Spot Spot"
explain the impacts of nonpoint source pollution from our homes and yards and provide valuable tips
on how to reduce them Although the book was originally targeted for residents in the neighborhoods
surrounding the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes, its recipes can be used anywhere. In the chapter titled
"BMPs - Home Recipes for Clean Water," you'll find a great recipe for Stormwater Supreme. It calls
for 1 quart BMPs, natural household cleaners, one 5-ft by 5-ft compost heap, 1/3 gallon paint savvy,
1 cup construction precaution, and a dash of reduce, reuse, repair, and recycle.
[For a copy, contact author Bill Boudreau (612) 825-0979 or Boudreau@worldnet.att.net.]
Assessment and Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution of
Aquatic Ecosystems: A Practical Approach
This publication is designed to review current knowledge and experience regarding the assessment
and control of NPS pollution, and bring this knowledge together in a form that is useful for both
scientific and management purposes. The focus of the book is primarily on NPS pollution from
agriculture, urban construction, and forested areas, including the health of aquatic ecosystems and
human use of water resources. It was published as part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Series. For a copy, contact
Parthenon Publishing Group Inc., One Blue Hill Plaza, PO. Box 1564, Pearl River, NY 10965; fax:
(914) 7351385. It can also be ordered online at UNESCO's web site at www.unesco.org.
Web Sites Worth a Bookmark
WWW. mpatabaSe. Org This database provides access to stormwater BMP performance data in a standardized
format for more than 70 BMP studies conducted over the past 1 5 years. It is also available on CD
— ROM. The Urban Water Resources Research Council (UWRRC) of the American Society of
Civil Engineers developed the database under a cooperative agreement with EPA.
WWW.ameriCdnforeStS.OrQ American Forests is the nation's oldest nonprofit citizen conservation organization. Its
mission is to ensure a sustainable future for our nation's forests — both urban and rural —
through national and international tree planting, forest policy, urban forestry, and popular
programs such as The National Register of Big Trees and Famous & Historic Trees.
28 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
-------
WWW.3T3ndp3.org The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is the national trade association of the forest,
paper, and wood products industries. AF&PA is actively committed to preserving the environment
through such innovative programs as the 50% Recycling Goal, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative
program, and the Environment Health & Safety Principles, while promoting a sound business
climate that maintains the industry's competitiveness. This web site will soon provide the latest
facts and figures about forests nationwide, as well as forest history.
Datebook
DATEBOOK is prepared with the cooperation of our readers. If you would like a meeting or event
placed in the DATEBOOK, contact the NPS News-Notes editors. Notices should be in our hands at
least two months in advance to ensure timely publication.
Meetings and Events
July 2OOO
9-12
9-12
10-14
17-21
July 31-August 4
July 31-August 5
August 2OOO
7-11
27-31
September 2OOO
5
11-14
Coasts at the Millennium, Portland, OR. Contact Laurie Jodice, The Coastal Society 17 Office, c/o MRM
College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 104 Ocean Admin Building, Corvallis,
OR 97331-5503. Phone: (541) 737-2064; e-mailjodicel@oce.orst.edu.
WATERSHED 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia. Contact The Water Environment Federation Member
Services Center at 1-800-666-0206 or (703) 684-2452. e-mail: msc@wef.org.
The Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course, Orlando, FL. For application contact Princeton
Groundwater P.O. Box 273776, Tampa, FL 33688; Phone: (813) 964-0800; Fax: (813) 964-0900; e-mail:
Info@princeton-groundwater.com; web site: www.princeton-groundwater.com.
15-27 Grand River Expedition 2000. Grand River, MI. Contact Mike Smith, E-mail: mjsmith@power-
net.net; web site: www.grand-river2000.org.
North Dakota Summer Institute on Water Resources. Western 4-H Camp, Washburn, ND. For more information
contact Bill Sharff. Phone: (701) 328-4833.
Living Downstream in the Next Millennium: Reconciling Watershed Concerns with Basin Management. New
Orleans, LA. Contact Jeffery A. Ballweber, Water Resources Policy Analyst, Water Resources Research
Institute, P.O. Boxx AD, Mississippi State, MS 39762. Phone: (662) 325-3620; fax: (662) 325-3621; e-mail:
ballweber@engr.msstate.edu.
Environmental Training Institute for Small Communities. This workshop at West Virginia University in
Morgantown offers courses on managing wastewater, drinking water and sold waste services. Sponsored by the
National Training Center for Small Communities. Contact: 800-624-8301 or (304) 293-4191 ext. 5582 or
ext. 5799; web site www.netc.wvu.edu.
11 Annual Tri-Regional Nonpoint Source Meeting, Ardmore, OK. Contact Tommy Perry, Cherokee County
Conservation District, 1009 S. Muskogee Avenue, Tahlequah, OK 74464-4733. Phone: (918) 456-1919.
International Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. Portland, OR.
Contact Mike Kowalski, American Water Resources Association (AWRA) Director of Operations, 4 West
Federal Street, P.O. Box 1626, Middleburg, VA20118-1626. Phone: (540) 686-8390, fax: (540) 687-8395;
e-mail: mikw@awra.org; web site: www.awra.org/meetings/Portland/Portland.html.
Teach Students About Bay Issues. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources is recruiting volunteers for
Teaching Environmental Awareness in Maryland (TEAM). No experience necessary; the DNR will provide
training starting Sept. 5 on the Western Shore. Contact Matthew Chasse at (410) 260-8828; e-mail:
mchasse@dnr.state.md.us; web site: www.dnr.state.md.us/volunteers/teamdnr.
8th National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop: Monitoring and Modeling Nonpoint Source Pollution in the
Rural-Urban Interface. Hartford, CT. Contact John Clausen, University of Connecticut, Department of
Natural Resources Management & Engineering, 1376 Storrs Rd, U-4087, Stotrs, CT 06269-4087.
Phone:(860) 486-2840, fax: (860) 486-5408; e-mail: jclausen@canr.uconn.edu; web site:
www.ce.uconn.edu/nps.html.
MARCH 2000, ISSUE #61
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 29
-------
18-20
22-24
27-29
October 2OOO
12-15
17-20
17-21
24-26
30
November 2OOO
8-10
December 2OOO
1-4
4-9
5-8
13-16
14
15-17
Coastal Environment 2000: Environmental Problems in Coastal Regions, Third International Conference. Las
Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. Contact Sally Walsh, Conference Secretariat, Wessex Institute of Technology,
Ashunt Lodge, Ashurst Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. Phone: +44 (0) 238 029 3223; fax: +44 (0) 238 029
2853; e-mail: slwalsh@wessex.ac.uk.
Environmental Problem Solving with GIS, Cincinnati, OH. Contact Lisa Enderle, (412) 741-5462, e-mail:
lisa.e.enderle@cpmx.saic.com; web site: www.epa.gov/ttbnrmrl/.
Alliance for Environmental Conservation: A Comprehensive Approach to Nutrient Management, St. Louis, MO.
Contact Wanda Linker, (334) 265-2732; e-mail: wanda@apea.the-link.net; web site:
www. inform, umd. edu/manurenet. workshops/workshop, htm.
National Small Farm Conference, St. Louis, MO. Contact Dyremple Marsh, (573) 682-5550.
Wetland Training Institute's Wetland Construction and Restoration Course. Hastings, MI. Taught by G. Pierce and
C. Newling. For more information, contact the Wetland Training Institute, P.O. Box 31, Glenwood, NM 88039;
phone/fax: (877) 792-6482; e-mail:getinfo@wetlandtraining.com; website: www.wetlandtraining.com.
Spanning Cultural and Ecological Diversity Through Environmental Education, The 29* Annual Conference of
the North American Association for Environmental Education, South Padre Island, TX. Visit www.naaee.ofg^ir
more information.
Conference 2000, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. The conference will focus on erosion, sediment, and storm
water management. Early registration fee is $195 and $235 after September 15, 20000. Contact Jeanne Feurer,
Conference Coordinator, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Soil
and Water Conservation, 89 Kings Highway, Dover, DE 19901. Phone: (302) 739-4411; fax: (302) 739-6724;
e-mail: jfeurer@dnrec.state.de. us.
Healthy Watersheds: Community Based Partnerships for Environmental Decision-making. Aurora, CO. Contact
Phyllis O'Meara, phone: (303) 671-1034, e-mail:paomeara@opm.gov.
Facilitating and Mediating Effective Environmental Agreements, Berkeley, CA. Contact CONCUR, Inc. At
(510) 649-8008 or visit www.concurinc.com.
North American Lake Management Society's Symposium 99, Reno, NV. Contact Terry Thiesen, (608) 233-2836;
e-mail: thiesen@nalms.org; website: www.nalms.org.
Watershed Management to Protect Declining Species, Seattle, WA. Contact AWRA, (703)904-1225;
e-mail: awrahq@aol.com; website: www.awra.org.
National Conference of Grazing Lands, Las Vegas, NV. Contact Terry Lynott, (303) 988-0520;
e-mail: tplynott@aol.com.
Ground Water: A Transboundary, Strategic and Geopolitical Resource. Las Vegas, NE. Sponsored by the Association
of Ground Water Scientists dr Engineers Technical Program. Contact Michael E. Campana, Chair, Phone: (505)
277-3269; fax: (505) 277-3269; e-mail: aquadoc@umn.edu; web site: www.ngwa.org.
Agricultural TMDLs Workshop, New Orleans, LA. Contact CTIC, (765) 494-9555;
e-mail: ctic@ctic.purdue.edu;web site: www.ctic.purdue.edu.
Conservation 2000, New Orleans, LA. Contact CTIC, (765) 494-9555; e-mail: ctic@ctic.purdue.edu;web site:
www. ctic.purdue. edu.
3O
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JULY 2OOO, ISSUE #61
-------
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon
(Mail or FAX this coupon to us)
Our Mailing Address: NFS NeWS-Notes c/o Terrene Institute, 4 Herbert Street,
Alexandria, VA 22305
Our FAX Number: NPS News-Notes (202) 260- 1 977 and (703) 548-6299
Use this Coupon to
(check one or more) Q Share your Clean Water Experiences
Q Ask for Information
G Make a Suggestion
Write your story, ask your question, or make your suggestions here:
Attach additional pages if necessary.
Your Name:
Organization:
Address:
City/States
Phone:
E-mail:
Please add my name to the mailing list to receive News-Notes free of charge.
Change my address. (Please send us your old address, too.)
Date:
Zip:
FAX:
Web site:
JULY 2000, ISSUE f 61
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
3 1
------- |