April/May 1997
#48
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
Notes on the National Scene
SDWA '96 Establishes New Directions Calls for Source Water
Protection, Drinking Water SRF, and Public Involvement
Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 to give the states "more
resources and more effective authority to attain the objectives of the [original] Safe Drinking
Water Act." But the new law does more than that. It also connects two environmental issues:
watershed protection and safe drinking water.
Broad Objectives
SDWA '96 (as the new law is commonly cited) requires that drinking water standards be set
specifically to consider the risks of unsafe water on sensitive subpopulations: children, pregnant
women, the sick and elderly. It also directs EPA to use the best available peer-reviewed science,
risk assessment, and cost/benefit analysis in establishing these standards and to provide
monitoring flexibility and "relief" (i.e., alternative monitoring provisions under certain
conditions) to community water systems.
SDWA '96 also and for the first time formally requires states to conduct source water
delineations and assessments: that is, to establish source water protection areas and assess and
make public the susceptibility of public water supplies to contamination. And that's not all. The
Act specifically notes that existing watershed delineations and assessments may be used to
fulfill SDWA '96 requirements.
Last, though not least, to ensure the states' ability to pursue these broad objectives, SDWA '96
authorized a drinking water State Revolving Fund (SRF), modeled after the Clean Water Act
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
Motes on the National Scene
SDWA '96 Establishes New Directions in Source Water Protection . 1
Postal Service Joins Chesapeake Bay Effort 3
Northern California TMDL Lawsuit Settled 4
Notes on Riparian and Watershed Management
Nation's First (Quantified) Riparian Forest Buffer Goal 4
Deluge in the Grand Canyon 5
Are Riparian Areas for the Birds? 8
Urban Runoff Notes
Seattle's Salmon Come Home to a Healthier Creek 9
Developer Provides Site for Testing Urban BMPs 10
Reclaiming Greenwich Bay 11
Postal Service Proactive on NFS 12
Notes on the Agricultural Environment
Farming Practices in Herrings Marsh Run Project 13
Hops Growers Combine Efficiency and Environmental Concern . . 14
News From the States, Tribes, and Localities
SRF Buys More Than Wastewater Treatment 14
Teamwork Makes a Difference in Broad Creek, South Carolina ... 15
Update: Lower Hood Canal Shellfish Harvest Restored 16
Technical Notes
Quick Nutrient Test More Than a Convenience . . . ,
Comparing Monitoring Data
DNA Fingerprints Lead to Fecal Coliform Identification .
Notes on Education and Outreach
Education and Outreach in Action
Mid-Atlantic Maps Boat Sewage Disposal Locations . . .
New Stream Videos
Reviews and Announcements
Website Links Great Lakes Resources
Applied River Morphology A Review
EPA Watershed Academy Offers Training
RFPs from AWWARF
West Virginia's Troubled Waters
Dredged Material Management Guidance Out in Draft
NPS Electronic Information Exchange News
DATEBOOK .
THE COUPON
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
22
24
25
25
25
26
26
27
All issues of News-Notes are accessible on the NPS Information Exchange on EPA's World Wide Web Site: http://www.epa.gov. See
page 26 for log-on information.
-------
SDWA '96
Establishes New
Directions
(continued)
SRF and funded at $1 billion per year for five years. The fund for 1997 has been capitalized at
$1.275 billion, and states can use up to 10 percent of their 1997 allocation for source water
assessment.
Getting Back to Basics
Until recently, the concern for safe drinking water centered on water treatment services in
municipal and industrial facilities serving cities, towns, and villages; the source of the water
was largely forgotten. If we thought much about this water at,all, we thought of it as "tap
water." Drinking water does not, however, originate in the pipes under our feet or in the water
tower downtown. Its source is farther afield in the rivers and streams that we swim in and fish,
that we harness for power and use for transportation, agriculture, and commerce.
Once this link is made, the need for a coordinated strategy or watershed approach to ensure the
quality of drinking water, minimize the risk to public health from waterborne diseases, and
protect drinking water sources is clear.
Drinking Water SRF Hastens Guidance
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is
preparing guidance to help the states implement the source water protection aspects of SDWA
'96. A national public meeting in January facilitated the writing of the draft guidance and
provided an opportunity for all stakeholders environmental and public health groups,
nongovernmental organizations, and all federal agencies to share their concerns and
expertise with EPA.
Information received at this meeting and additional public comment is reflected in the draft
guidance document and will be further discussed in a series of regional meetings to be held this
spring.
Final guidance is due in August 1997; however, the process has been accelerated because states
are authorized to use up to 10 percent of their SRF allotments for source water delineation and
assessment. This money can be used over several years, but only if it is set aside by September
1997. States may also use up to 10 percent of their drinking water SRF, with no fiscal year
limitations, for implementing source water protection programs. (For information on how SRFs
work in NFS control, see article on page 14 of this issue.)
Consumer Confidence Reports
Another Take on Public Involvement
SDWA '96 specifies that the
Administrator, in consultation with public water
systems, environmental groups, public interest
groups, risk communication experts, and the
states, and other Interested parties, shall issue
regulations within 24 months... [requiring]
each community water system to matt to aacft
customer of the system at least once annually a ,
report on the level of contaminants in tfw
drinking water purveyed by that system. 0
The Act specifies that these "consumer confidence
reports" should contain "brief and plainly woreted*
information on the source of the water purveyed; .
definitions and indications of the levels of
contaminants, actual and potential; any variances or
exemptions that apply; and a statement of health
concerns that may result.
The authority given to EPA to consult with the larger
community and issue regulations regarding these
consumer reports suggests that Congress envisioned
them as part of a "greater opportunity for public
education and participation" as well as a way of
providing "prompt notification of any violations."
Public Involvement, Consumer Confidence
An important concern for EPA and its partners is how to
generate public interest and involvement in drinking water
issues so that states are motivated to make source water
assessments and use them in management initiatives. One way
is to focus on consumer confidence reports (see box); another is
to publicize the links between watershed protection and
drinking water quality and quantity issues; and still another is to
copy the model developed so successfully in the Wellhead
Protection Program. These approaches are perhaps more
complementary than opposing and several them or all three
may be reflected in the final guidance document.
Still, the question before EPA, water suppliers, environmental
groups, and other interested parties (including physicians and
those who represent vulnerable populations) is not whether, but
how to make information and education available to the general
public. The objective, at least is clear: to engage the public's
interest in, and demand for, source water protection and
overcome the apparent disconnect between the public's concern
for drinking water and its recognition that drinking water comes
from rivers, streams, and groundwater in the watershed.
Finding answers to these questions and integrating drinking
water safety with watershed protection may lead us to an
entirely new paradigm for environmental protection one in
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE *48
-------
SOW A '96 which EPA is not only a regulator but also, with other federal agencies, health, and
Establishes New environmental advocates, a mentor to communities working on their own.
Directions ^For more jnformation on SDWA '96 and the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water's draft guidance
(continued) document for source water assessments, contact Kevin McCormack (4606), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 401 M Street, S. W., Washington, DC
20460. Phone:(202) 260-7772; fax: (202) 260-0732. For copies of the guidance and the Safe Drinking
Water Act, call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800) 426-4791.]
Postal Service Joins Effort to Protect the Chesapeake Bay
With 1,500 facilities scattered throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin, the U.S. Postal Service has
unequaled community presence and tremendous resources to bring to the Chesapeake Bay
Program. Indeed, many believe that this new partner can provide exactly what the program
needs. "It's a great opportunity for a federal agency to lead by example, by being a good land
steward," said Peter Marx, EPA coordinator of the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. "Its
facilities are located in virtually every community in the 64,000 square mile Bay watershed."
As part of an agreement signed last fall between the Postal Service and EPA (see box), the Postal
Service will implement pollution prevention practices in post offices throughout Pennsylvania,
Delaware, New York, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. These practices will
reduce pollution from vehicle maintenance facilities by using oil-water separators and curbing
stormwater runoff. Postal facilities will demonstrate Bayscapes landscaping techniques, such as
integrated pest management, beneficial plants, and water conservation to reduce fertilizer and
pesticide use on postal service property. (Bayscapes is a package of environmentally sound
landscaping principles developed by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.)
Protecting the Bay through Pollution Prevention
Dawn Lebek, Postal Service Environmental Coordinator for the Baltimore District and liaison to
the Chesapeake Bay Program, believes that these practices will make a significant contribution
to protecting the Bay, but are not the entire solution. Lebek notes that "our efforts will help
reduce pollution in the Bay, [but] we are only a piece of a larger puzzle. Ultimately, we hope
that our actions will encourage other agencies, businesses, and individuals to adopt pollution
prevention measures like these."
Providing Public Outreach Opportunities
The Postal Service is also working closely with EPA to develop
a poster illustrating the benefits of BayScapes landscaping methods for display in post
offices located within the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
a brochure outlining steps that individuals can take to protect the Bay,
a Chesapeake Bay awareness cancellation postmark that will be placed on hundreds
of thousands of pieces of mail, and
a model post office that will demonstrate the effectiveness of BayScaping to reduce
nonpoint source pollution.
Commitments under the Memorandum of Understanding
U.S. Postal Service
Reduce pollutants entering the Bay from lawncare
practices by using BayScapes landscaping
methods.
Join other federal agencies in championing the
concept of environmental stewardship to preserve
and protect the Bay.
Work with local municipalities to increase
involvement in Bay restoration and protection efforts.
Contribute to EPA's efforts to increase public
awareness at local postal facilities,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Help the Chesapeake Bay Program
Communications Office with promotion and public
outreach.
Coordinate technical assistance from other
Chesapeake Bay Program participants.
Help the Postal Service develop and implement a
coordinated action plan, and work with the Postal
Service to monitor progress.
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Postal Service The result of these efforts will help both parties uphold their commitments. "We are excited
Joins Effort to about the possibilities," comments Lebek. "By formulating a strong [biennial] action plan with
Protect the ambitious but realistic targets and strategies, we can work together to reduce pollution, engage
Chesapeake Bay the public, and protect the Chesapeake Bay for generations to come."
(continued)
"Local postmasters, generally well-known in their communities, will be taking the lead in
making local governments aware of the Bay Program's efforts ...," adds Marx. "They provide a
ready liaison for many small upstream communities to learn about, and get involved in,
helping their local streams and rivers, and ultimately, the Chesapeake Bay."
[For more information, contact Dawn Lebek, U.S. Postal Service Environmental Coordinator, Baltimore
Main Post Office, 900 East Fayette Street, Room 326, Baltimore, MD 21233-9126. Phone: (410) 347-4277.]
TMDL Lawsuit Settled in Northern California
The U.S. EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorney for California's Northern
district have settled one of 20 TMDL lawsuits across the country. The suit, concerning pollution
in 18 river basins on California's north coast was brought by 14 environmental and fishing
industry groups. In the settlement, filed March 7, EPA made a commitment guaranteeing that
the water quality and pollution sources will be assessed and pollution reduction targets
established in the 18 river basins by 2007. The assessments, or Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs), are needed because existing pollution controls have not been sufficient to curb
excessive sediment loads on rivers and streams in these watersheds.
A CWA Responsibility
The Clean Water Act gives states the primary responsibility for developing TMDLs, although
EPA can also develop them. The state of California, which was not a party to the suit, has
already agreed to establish TMDLs for about half the basins. Under the settlement, EPA will
develop TMDLs for the remaining basins and pick up any that the state fails to complete within
the agreement's time frame. The agreement also provides for the establishment of a minimum
number of TMDLs each year. EPA will work with timberland owners and local watershed
stakeholders to pursue TMDL development in conjunction with sustained timber yield plans,
habitat conservation plans for endangered and threatened species, and locally developed
watershed management plans.
Notes on Riparian and Watershed Management
Nation's First Riparian Forest Buffer Goal
2,010 Miles by 2010
The Chesapeake Bay basin jurisdictions of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner, and the
Chesapeake Bay Commission are planning to protect existing riparian forests and specifically to
reforest 2,010 miles of bay tributaries over the next 13 years the first goal of its kind in the
nation.
"By setting this goal, we help improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, provide for
accountability in government, and give the public an objective to work toward 2,010 by
2010," commented Virginia Governor George Allen, speaking on behalf of the Chesapeake
Executive Council.
According to Al Todd, U.S. Forest Service liaison to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
increasing the riparian forest buffer "may prevent half a million pounds of excess nitrogen from
entering the Bay each year," and will directly improve the habitats of cold water and
anadromous fish. The 2,010 miles of enhanced habitat will provide woody debris for shelter and
an abundance of leafy material the primary building block of the freshwater food web. "It
will also help build a corridor of bird habitat," Todd explained.
4 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
-------
Nation's First
Riparian Forest
Buffer Goal
(continued)
Local Plans Support Regional Agreement
The benefits of forested riparian buffers streambank stabilization, habitat improvement,
sediment and pollution filtering are widely recognized and many watersheds have made
riparian protection a priority. However, this initiative bears watching not only because it has set
an ambitious goal but also because it cuts across jurisdictional boundaries.
The regional agreement commits each jurisdiction to develop a riparian buffer implementation
plan by June 1998. Each plan will spell out strategies to conserve existing riparian forest
corridors, measures to coordinate state programs, and techniques for outreach and education.
Each one will also specify exactly how many miles of forested buffer it will restore and how it
will meet its goals. In addition to state and private lands, approximately 1.7 million acres of
federal lands in the Chesapeake Bay will be included in the riparian buffer plans.
Funding Possibilities a Search for Incentives
A 31-member Riparian Forest Buffer Panel created by the CEC in 1994 and composed of
government officials, environmental activists, farmers, developers, foresters, and scientists
recommended that the 2010 goal be met by increasing private sector involvement through
incentives like tax reliefs and tree planting credits, and by supporting research, monitoring,
technology transfer, and education. The panel suggested taking advantage of existing incentives
including cost-share programs, grants, and conservation easements. The panel would also like
to see the states try different approaches, perhaps the creation of an income tax credit for
landowners who establish buffers on their property.
Todd says that it costs on average between $400 and $1,000 per acre to install a riparian buffer,
and though each state will fund its plan differently; a number of federal and state conservation
incentives such as the Forest Stewardship Program can help offset the costs.
Tools for Using Trees
CITYgreen, an urban planning tool from
American Forests, helps map and
measure the value of trees in terms of
summer energy savings, stormwater
management, carbon storage, and urban
wildlife habitat. For information and a
demo disk, call (202) 667-3300, ext 227,
or visit http://www.amfor.org.
Working Trees for Communities,
a color brochure developed by the
National Agroforestry Center, illustrates
planting practices to protect natural
resources, diversify the environment, and
conserve energy. To obtain copies, contact
Kim Issacson, National Agroforestry
Center, USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Station, USDA NRCS, east
Campus-University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, NE 68583-0822. Phone: (402)
437-5178; fax: (402) 437-5712,
For example, the Conservation Reserve Program, administered by the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, can provide agricultural
landowners with some easement payments and cost-share programs, and
in Maryland, which plans to plant 600 miles of forest buffer by the year
2010, the Buffer Incentive Program already pays landowners $300 per acre
to install buffers on streambanks in addition to providing cost-share
assistance. In Pennsylvania, the idea of a nonprofit tree trust fund is on the
table. As momentum builds, a unique combination of direct incentive
programs, volunteerism, state program funding, and new ideas are likely
to surface in each state.
Other public agencies and private groups such as the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and Trout-Unlimited
have outreach and restoration projects that dovetail with the reforestation
goal and lend muscle to the ambitious target. As is often the case, local
efforts may forge ahead of larger federal programs. The Elizabeth River
Project in Eastern Virginia, for example, has already begun to install buffer
zones to help restore native riverine habitat and contribute to the
2,010-mile goal.
"We're seeing a groundswell of community and volunteer involvement"
says Todd, who also notes that "building a new riparian stewardship ethic
is something else we hope to accomplish."
[For more information, contact Al Todd, U.S. Forest Service Liaison to the Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, or Ann Lackey, Riparian Initiative Fellow, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109, Annapolis, MD 21403. Phone:(800) 968-7229.]
Deluge in the Grand Canyon
A New Twist on an Old Story
Compared to prehistoric floods, last year's planned flood of the Grand Canyon was hardly a
record. It lasted two weeks from March 22 to April 7, flowed at a peak rate of only 45,000 cubic
feet per second (about half the flow of an average natural flood), topped out at 110 billion
APRIUMAY 1997, ISSUE #48
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Deluge in the
Grand Canyon
(continued)
gallons of water, and cost about $3 million in foregone power production and flood conduct
studies. It set a new record, however, as the first-ever attempt to use intentional flooding to
improve the river and benefit biological diversity and the canyon's human visitors.
Although the flood's initial results were extremely satisfying, scientists engaged in planning
and evaluating its immediate and long-term effects agree that the task requires painstaking
effort, a sense of history, and a large dose of cooperation.
Prologue to the Event
Flows in the canyon first declined in 1963 when the Glen Canyon Dam began storing water to
provide electricity, irrigation water, and additional recreational opportunities in the Southwest.
People's lives in the region improved, but not without changes to the river and concern about
the dam's effects on the Glen Canyon Recreation Area, the Grand Canyon National Park, and
tribal lands of the Navajo, Havasupai, and Hualapai. Finally, in 1982, the Bureau of Reclamation
initiated the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Group to study these effects. In 1988, the
group concluded that the dam was causing significant impacts enough to choke the canyon.
Additional research and long and arduous consultation culminated in the 1992 Grand
Canyon Protection Act, which authorized operating the dam to store water and help manage
the river corridor; and the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The latter assesses
conditions resulting from the dam and spells out the preferred alternative for how the dam
should be operated. The flood experiment was conducted in accordance with these documents.
Mixed Results
Restored beaches and habitat were foremost among the results the flood was expected to
achieve. An immense flow would, investigators hoped, alter the river ecology, renewing the
canyon in much the same way that a wildfire helps renew the forest. It would, for example,
stir up the river bottom, creating new sandbars and washing away banks, vegetation
overgrowth, and debris;
rejuvenate the back channels, thereby helping to warm the water and creating new
spawning grounds and nurseries for five native fish, including the humpback chub
and razorback sucker;
help flush nonnative species into Lake Mead to prevent them from preying on,
competing with, or spreading disease to the native species;
release enough organic debris, primarily of plant material in the backwater channels,
to create a nutrient surge that would benefit all species.
Many scientists and visitors to the park agree that most of these benefits were achieved. (Only
the nonnative fish refused to move. Instead of washing over into Lake Mead, they hid in
shoreline vegetation or took refuge in the slower moving tributaries.) According to U.S.
Department of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, the flood significantly improved "the size and
number of the river's beaches and the creation of backwater habitat."
Other results are still being monitored, however, and may not be as dramatic as the project's
organizers had hoped. More time is needed to gage the stability and longevity of these effects,
to determine what conditions are optimal, and to assess the effects of natural flooding on the
canyon's health. In fact, more than 200 scientists are still gathering data on the event and about
40 separate research projects are now underway.
Still, the flood's immediate results were successful enough to support plans to repeat it in five to
10 years. That's about the same amount of time, nearly a decade, that organizers say it took to
plan and achieve this flood.
Future Possibilities
Some scientists are hoping to apply the expertise and the technology used in this project to
other rivers and dams in the United States. For others, the future of controlled flooding is less
certain; how to manage the dams on the nation's largest rivers that is, whether planned
flooding can be used to restore the natural functions of these rivers and if so, to what extent
is still an open question.
6
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
-------
Deluge in the
Grand Canyon
(continued)
Controlled Flooding Experiment Hailed as Success
Initial scientific data indicate that dozens of new sand beaches were formed and many new backwater
habitats for endangered fish were created in Grand Canyon National Park in March and April 1996, when
water was allowed to flow through four hollow jet tubes in the Glen Canyon Dam. Water levels in Lake
Powell dropped 3.5 feet during the flood flow, but this drop had been anticipated and no water deliveries to
states or individuals were affected. Other notable effects:
Initially, 55 new beaches were created in the
first 61 miles of the canyon, the area most
depleted by the dam.
Sand bar volumes along the river in the Grand
Canyon increased by an average of 53 percent,
although the actual lateral area increased by
only 5 to 7 percent.
Over 82 new campsites were created, while
three were destroyed.
About 80 percent of the beach aggradation
occurred in the first 20 to 48 hours of the flood
(so shorter, less-expensive, high flows may be
sufficient for future ecological restoration).
Several major rapids, for example, Lava Falls
and Badger Rapids, were carved and widened
by the flood.
Scouring of clay and vegetation bases in the
backwaters and marshes increased fish habitat
by about 20 percent though large summer
releases (from snowmelt and unusually heavy
rains) made some of this habitat unusable.
Nutrients in the form of organic debris in the
main river and back channels created a nutrient
surge that benefited fish, aquatic insects, and
plants, including native willows.
The downstream trout fishery and Native
American cultural artifacts and sites in the
canyon were not harmed, and no negative
impacts were observed on endangered bird
species, including the Southwestern willow
flycatcher and the peregrine falcon.
Researchers recommend continued on-the-ground monitoring and the use of aerial photography to
evaluate the strength of this restoration vis-a-vis continued operations of the dam. They note, for example,
that sandbars deposited by the flood are already eroding, and periodic controlled flooding may be
necessary to retain their viability.
The consensus achieved for this event is hard to maintain. For example, the Glen Canyon
Environmental Studies Group led by Dave Wegner has been disbanded, Department of Interior
sources say, not because the department is retreating from the project but because "its mission is
complete." The Grand Canyon Research and Monitoring Center will now oversee operations at
the dam.
In fact, the model for the new organization is clearly described in the EIS, and it will, like its
predecessor, draw support from the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S.
Geologic Service. However, this center, unlike the group it replaces, will be an independent entity
that answers directly to the Secretary. Its meetings will be public and its membership diverse.
Permanent Protections
On October 9,1996, Secretary Babbitt released a summary of 34 separate draft scientific studies,
which, according to the accompanying statement, showed that the flood had been successful in
restoring key elements of the river (see box).
The Secretary also signed a "record of decision" that establishes dam operation criteria that will
protect the Colorado and the Grand Canyon consistent with the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection
Act and the 1995 EIS. "In signing this document, we begin a new chapter in the fabled history of
the Grand Canyon and Glen Canyon Dam," Babbitt said, adding that it "marks a sea change in
the way we view the operation of large dams."
The new regulations restrict power cooperatives from releasing wildly fluctuating amounts of
water through the Glen Canyon Dam. However, they are not expected to affect the cost of power
in the western states (which, according to Greenwire [6/145] has already increased about 25
percent since 1991). They do, however, formalize existing agreements to operate the Glen Canyon
Dam for environmental purposes in addition to traditional water and power generation benefits.
[For more information, contact Paul B/edsoe, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary,
Bureau of Reclamation, 18th and C Streets, Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 208-4662. Or contact Barry
Wirth, Bureau of Reclamation Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Room 6103, Salt Lake City, UT
84138-1102. Phone: (801) 524-6477; e-mail: bwirth@uc.usbr.gov.]
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Are Riparian Areas for the Birds?
Most water resources people know the importance of riparian areas in filtering out nonpoint
source pollution. But a cooperative project between the Santa Clara Water District and the
Coyote Creek Riparian Station (CCRS) in Alviso, California, is demonstrating the value of
restored riparian areas for migratory songbirds. Researchers at CCRS have been studying how
resident and migratory songbirds use revegetative riparian areas for the past ten years.
Neotropical migrants such as the Swainson's thrush, yellow warbler, and common yellowthroat
winter in Mexico and Central America and travel through Alviso in the summer to breed in the
Pacific Northwest. Riparian zones between Mexico and the Pacific Northwest serve as
important refueling and rest stops for the travelers. In fact, these zones are critical to the birds'
survival. Many species are already under pressure from habitat losses in both their tropical
wintering grounds and their northern breeding areas.
Designing Flood Controls That Preserve Habitat
Years of research at CCRS indicates that the area is very heavily used as a stopover for migrants.
So when intense flooding in 1982 and 1983 prompted the District to implement flood control
measures, it tried to design them to benefit wildlife habitat and to protect human development.
To keep the riparian corridor intact, the District constructed levees up to 240 yards away from
the creek. Though the creek was straightened in some areas, its natural corridor and meander
remained.
In 1986, a mitigation plan called for replacing four acres of riparian vegetation lost to
construction at the research station. The District asked CCRS to monitor and compare the
wildlife use of both the revegetated area and the existing riparian habitats. Since an estimated
90 percent of California's riparian vegetation is degraded or gone, the viability of revegetated
areas is crucial.
Chris Otahal, the station's avian research program director, described the pilot revegetation site
as a "hodgepodge of plants taken from all over the state." Trees were densely planted, and the
resulting shade slowed the development of understory vegetation needed by migrants like the
hermit thrush. Other sections, notably "clumps" of cottonwoods and willows, seemed to attract
birds.
Vegetative Mosaic Benefits Migrants
In 1992, CCRS made recommendations to the Santa Clara Valley Water District on the design of
an eight-acre area at the research station that would provide habitat for neotropical migrant
birds. Using plants propagated on site, the District planted clumps of native trees interspersed
with blackberry, goldenrod, and mugwort. A dense understory with shrubs such as elderberry,
box elder, coyote brush, and young willow yields cover and concealment and a plentiful supply
of seeds, berries, and insects. Trees such as cottonwood, willow, and sycamore provide shelter
from the weather and protection from predators. The resulting mosaic appears to be more
attractive to neotropical migrants than the first revegetated site.
Monitoring of the eight-acre site is still in the early stages, but Otahal has a "gut feeling" about
it. "The site is becoming useful to migrants more quickly than the pilot site because the habitat
is better," he says. Otahal points out that the earlier experience was a learning project, and since
monitoring will continue at CCRS for at least the next 50 years, they are sure to learn even more.
Volunteers Make It Happen
Coyote Creek Riparian Station attributes much progress to its volunteers. Under the guidance
of three biologists, 40 volunteers retrieve birds caught in mist-nets with very fine mesh and fit
their legs with small metal bands engraved with nine-digit numbers. The numbers are used to
track the movements, health, and growth of individual birds. Volunteers also record each bird's
species, weight, bill length, age, plumage condition, and evidence of breeding. "The volunteers
really make it possible to maintain the quality of intensive research we do here at Coyote
Creek," says Otahal. "We couldn't do it without them."
The revegetative zones provide much-needed habitat for migratory songbirds, and they should
also improve water quality. Comprehensive water quality monitoring in the San Francisco Bay
8 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
-------
Are Riparian Estuary is being moved up into the major watersheds of the bay. The San Francisco Estuary
Areas for the Institute will monitor a site located immediately downstream from CCRS. Chances are, such
Birds? monitoring will show that not only are revegetative areas for the birds, they are also for other
(continued) wildlife, bird lovers, environmental planners, and water resource managers.
[For more information, contact Chris Otahal, P.O. Box 1027, Alviso, CA 95002. Phone: (408) 262-9204;
fax: (409) 263-3523; e-mail: ccrs@coyotecreek.org.]
Urban Runoff Notes
Seattle's Salmon Come Home to a Healthier Creek
More than 600 chum salmon returned to Seattle, Washington's, Pipers Creek last fall, making
1996 the fourth consecutive year that salmon have been observed there in substantial numbers.
Nancy Malmgren, director of the Carkeek Watershed Community Action Project (CWCAP),
credits the success to 18 years of stream restoration and community watershed education
capped by an effective salmon-rearing project.
Overfishing, loss of streamside forest, and channel blockages are obvious causes of the salmon's
decline; just as damaging, but less obvious, is urban sprawl. Over the years, the watershed has
lost 40 percent of its pervious cover. As a result, stormwater runoff precipitation that used to
soak into the ground now rushes off roads, parking lots, and roofs. It washes away gravel
spawning beds, crumbles streambanks, and dumps sediment on the stream, destroying the
pools. A big problem, according to Malmgren, was a stormwater system that collected runoff
from over one-third of the watershed and dumped it into the creek. Trees that once cooled the
water in Pipers Creek to salmon-friendly temperatures have disappeared in favor of street
lights and mowed lawns.
The low point came early, in 1929, when, for the first time, no spawning salmon were observed
returning to the stream. Things did not improve until the 1980s, when the Community Action
Project developed the Pipers Creek Early Action Watershed
Plan to help restore the creek and reverse the impacts of
uncontrolled runoff. A comprehensive watershed education
program funding a half-time watershed interpretive
specialist was also a key to success.
Protecting Trout from Big City Impacts
in Wisconsin
Urbanization Affects Sensitive Local Streams
[Adapted from the University of Wisconsin-Extension^ Keeping
Current, November 1996.]
Studies show that once 20 percent of a watershed is roofed
and paved, sensitive trout habitat usually disappears from
local streams.
As the amount of impervious surface increases in urbanizing
areas, so does the amount and intensity of stormwater
runoff. The resulting streambank erosion and silt deposition
combined with elevated runoff temperatures heated by
sun-soaked parking lots and rooftops create an environment
that trout find intolerable.
Eau Claire, Wisconsin has developed two stormwater
management systems that preserve sensitive trout habitats.
One system, constructed at a local auto dealership, diverts
clean, cool rainwater around paved areas and filters roof
and parking area runoff into grassed swales and gravel
infiltration beds (see Nonpoint Source News-Notes, #41, for
more information on this project). The other, a regional
stormwater infiltration basin, keeps the postdevelopment
runoff rates at a 240-acre industrial park to predevelopment
levels for up to a 100-year storm event.
[For more information, contact Ron Struss, University of
Wisconsin-Extension Water Quality Educator, Geology
Department, Room 149 Phillip Halls, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
45702-4004. Phone: (715) 836-5513.]
Seattle Public Utilities created grassy swales and an
in-channel detention area to slow and absorb stormwater;
trees and other vegetation were replanted along 1.5 miles of
the stream; stormwater and sedimentation in the watershed
were put under a creek erosion plan; and a wetland
restoration plan that would develop a model urban
wetland is in the works. In-stream habitats and a fish
passage were improved with weirs and rock walls, and
cedar railings were installed along the banks to keep
human visitors back from the most popular spawning areas.
Return of the Salmon
Salmon restoration began in 1980 with coho salmon. Then
in 1984, volunteers began introducing chum fingerlings
(now raised by students in 20 area schools and the state
hatchery) into the improving stream habitat for their
downstream run to the sea. To facilitate their return
upstream as three-year-old adults, CWCAP volunteers,
Seattle Parks, and Seattle Public Utilities (under direction of
the state Fish and Wildlife Department) built a fish passage
to ease the salmon past a railroad concrete apron.
At first, the returns were small no more than 75 fish a
year. However, in 1989, CWCAP volunteers under the
direction of the Department of Fish and Wildlife created an
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Seattle's Salmon
Come Home to a
Healthier Creek
(continued)
"imprint pond" where the juvenile salmon can become accustomed to the creek before
swimming out to sea. Right on schedule, three years later, the imprinted salmon began
returning in growing numbers.
Malmgren is convinced that much of the solution lies in educating watershed residents and
changing their behavior. Carkeek Park, which cradles Pipers Creek, is the nucleus of the group's
educational effort. There, volunteers are constructing a model
backyard habitat demonstrating creek-friendly landscaping
practices. The children's play area next to Carkeek Environmental
Education Center is actually a model of a watershed/creek system
"for creative play with a message!" says Malmgren. And every
year, Salmon Stewards are stationed in the park during spawning
season to answer questions from visitors who come to see the
returning fish. Seeing the annual phenomenon first hand has
prompted public interest in the watershed and water quality.
National Watershed Award:
Call for Nominations
Applications are being accepted for the second
annual Conservation Fund Industries National
Watershed Award that will honor three communities
and one corporation for innovative local watershed
partnerships protecting water quality.
These awards, administered by the Conservation
Fund, are an outgrowth of the National Forum on
Nonpoint Source Pollution convened by the Fund
and the National Geographic Society. Along with
other public and private sector partners, EPA and
USDA were members of the Forum and supported
the establishment of this awards program.
Applications must be submitted by May 29, 1997.
Cash awards will be given to the community
projects. Additional information, including the
application form and specific award criteria, may
be obtained from Terrene Institute. Phone: (703)
548-5473; e-mail: terrinst@aol.com;
web:http://www.terrene.org/cfaward.htm.
Because of Malmgren's efforts and those of the Seattle
Department of Parks and Recreation, the state's Department of
Fish and Wildlife, the Seattle Conservation Corps, the Seattle
Public Utility and hundreds of volunteers things are looking
up. But Malmgren is reluctant to claim unqualified success. In
answer to the schoolchildren who always ask if the salmon they
raised will come back, she replies, "We'll do our best to make sure
that they do, and we'll try to give them a good home when they
do." But she adds privately, "We can bring the salmon back, but if
we don't control the stormwater runoff, they'll never become
self-sustaining."
[For more information, contact Nancy Malmgren, Carkeek Watershed
Community Action Project, 386 NW 112th St., Seattle, WA 98177. Phone:
(206)363-416.]
Connecticut Developer Volunteers Demonstration Site
Tests Urban Watershed Management Techniques
Ground breaking begins in May for the Glen Brook Green subdivision, a residential
development project designed to minimize stormwater and its effects and to yield hard
numbers on the effectiveness of such practices.
According to Project Coordinator Bruce Morton, the site in Waterford, Connecticut, "combines a
lot of practices you read about in NFS literature and assume to be good things. The Jordon Cove
Urban Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Project will test the reality what works,
what doesn't, and how well."
The 24-acre site in the Jordon Brook watershed constitutes a real-world lab: part will be
developed in a conventional, half-acre lot zoning pattern; part will be built in a cluster design.
Baseline monitoring has been ongoing for a year; during and after development, runoff from
the sites will be monitored and compared through 2006.
Landowner and developer John Lombardi and his family volunteered the site because they
want to see its development "done right." As a participant in the project, Lombardi agreed to
delay building for 15 months to accommodate advanced monitoring. The town of Waterford
also cooperated, agreeing to accept innovative site planning and development strategies, such
as grassed swales in lieu of curbs and gutters.
John C. Clausen, a researcher in water resources at the University of Connecticut's Department
of Natural Resource Management and Engineering, is monitoring the project using a paired
watershed design. He began background sampling in both areas slated for development in
November 1995 to establish a baseline for future comparisons. A nearby subdivision built in
1988 is being used as a control. All three sites drain into Nevins Brook, a tributary to Jordan
Brook which discharges into Jordan Cove, a small estuary of Long Island Sound.
1O
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIUMAY 1997, ISSUE «48
-------
Connecticut The project will implement construction BMPs on 100 percent of the lots. The goals of the BMPs
Developer are
Volunteers .... , , . .,
, ,. ,, to maintain postdevelopment average volumes and peak runoff rates at levels similar
to predevelopment levels;
to ensure that annual postdevelopment loadings of total suspended solids are no
greater than predevelopment rates;
to retain sediment on-site during construction; and
to reduce nitrogen export by 65 percent, bacterial export by 85 percent, and
phosphorus export by 40 percent.
During construction, phased grading, seeding of stockpiles, vegetation of open space,
cross-grading, and sediment detention swales will reduce runoff and improve its quality. When
completed, the development will feature pervious driveway surfaces, landscape plantings,
reduced roadway widths, roadside swales, detention swales and a cul-de-sac detention basin.
University of Connecticut Landscape Architecture Associate Professor John Alexopoulos and
his students have assisted in the landscape design for the development. The homeowners'
association and town will be encouraged to adopt controlled nutrient and pesticide application,
alternative road deicers, street sweeping or vacuuming, and vegetation management.
Funding to support the monitoring project is provided by the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection through a grant from EPA under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act.
John Lombardi, the town of Waterford, and other project participants are providing substantial,
nonfederal matching funds and in-kind services.
[For more information, contact Bruce Morton, Aqua Solutions, 60 Burnside Avenue, East Hartford, CT
06108. Phone/fax: (860) 289-7664.]
Reclaiming Greenwich Bay
In 1987, the Providence Journal called the city of Warwick a "suburban nightmare." Its haphazard
development and NFS pollution had created a serious water quality problem in Greenwich Bay.
Last June, the city was one of four local watershed initiatives asked to share its story at the
Watershed '96 conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The tale is one of a mayor and a community
who are facing their problems head-on with a single commitment: to clean up the Bay. Although
quantitative results are not expected for another year, the city has many plans and projects
underway to help achieve its goal.
A City Rolls Up Its Sleeves
In December 1992, Greenwich Bay was closed to shellfishing because of unsafe levels of fecal
coliform, primarily attributed to human waste. The closing hit the city, especially the
shellfishing industry, hard. Shellfishing in Greenwich Bay generates $4 to $6 million annually.
Jonathan Stevens, the city's director of planning explains, "The industry is only healthy if it can
provide a product on a continual basis. Part-time, conditional reopenings make it hard for
businesses to keep dealers, and, as a result, many of the small businesses have died."
At that point, according to Stevens, "a lot of people had written the city off, but Warwick Mayor
Lincoln Chafee wasn't about to give up." "Collecting quahogs is part of the fabric of this
community," Chafee said. In January 1993, he made the unconditional reopening of Greenwich
Bay to shellfishing a top priority.
The Mayor's commitment to the Bay led to an association of government and private agencies
working together. City departments, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management, Save the Bay, U.S. EPA, the University of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island
Shellfisherman's Association, Rhode Island Sea Grant, and the USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) were among the association's willing partners.
Public support for the clean up has also been strong. In November 1994, the citizens of Warwick
passed a $130 million bond referendum for wastewater management and sewer extensions that
will reduce pollution to the Bay.
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 1 1
-------
Reclaiming Finding and Fixing the Problems
}: A University of Rhode Island research team identified specific areas needing sewer extensions
' ' and septic system repairs. The team also discovered discharges from a dairy farm in western
Warwick and a direct sewage discharge at the old Apponaug Mill.
Using a $196,750 Aqua Fund Grant from the Department of Environmental Management, the
city of Warwick is developing a geographic information system to help locate the lush, green
backyards indicative of septic failure. The city and NRCS have applied for a $60,000 grant to
inventory storm drains that discharge to Greenwich Bay. Nutrient and bacteria measurements
associated with the storm drains can be plugged into modeling software to help predict when
and where pollution enters the bay.
Providing Solutions
To help remediate failing septic systems, the city offers a unique, municipal grant/loan to
residents. Residents can receive grants up to $1,600 and loans up to $2,400 to upgrade or replace
failing systems. To date, over 500 systems have been rehabilitated under the program.
The city has also proposed that the sewer authority dedicate $13 million to install innovative
septic and "step" collection systems. More efficient than conventional systems, step collection
systems trap solids at each residence and feed the liquid discharges to communal leach fields
for additional treatment.
Supported by the $130 million bond referendum of 1994, the Warwick Sewer Authority has
developed a 10-year, $89-million plan outlining 24 sewer extension projects. The proposed plan
is currently before the Department of Environmental Management for review and approval.
A section 312 Clean Vessel Act grant administered by the Department of Environmental
Management funded the construction of seven marina pump-out stations in Greenwich Bay to
collect waste from boat holding tanks.
The city of Warwick, Department of Environmental Management, and the NRCS helped the
owners of the polluting dairy install a cement pad to control animal waste. The sewage discharge
at the old Apponaug Mill has also been eliminated through a hook-up to an adjacent sewer line.
Outreach and training programs, including teacher training, training for public officials, and
marina operator workshops, are an important part of the initiative.
Strong leadership, coordination, and a carefully constructed, diverse approach to pollutant
sources are helping the city remake its dream. Together they have made a clean Greenwich Bay
an attainable goal for the near future.
[For more information, contact Jonathan Stevens, Director of Planning, City of Warwick, Planning
Department, City Hall Annex, 3275 Post Road, Warwick, Rl 02886-7191. Phone: (401) 738-2000, ext.
6289; fax: (401) 738-6639.]
Postal Service Takes A Proactive Approach to NPS
The U.S. Postal Service owns roughly 250 million square feet of internal office space the
equivalent of one square foot per person. Recall that it also has the largest delivery fleet in the
world, and it will come as no surprise that the Postal Service faces environmental challenges on
every front.
Despite its gargantuan size, the Postal Service delivers over 187 billion pieces of mail and
recycles over one million tons of waste per year. It also acts aggressively to resolve the
stormwater and NPS problems that it confronts in many locations.
For example, a Texas office conserves water and helps recharge the Edwards Aquifer by
keeping water in a stormwater discharge pipe that runs across its property. A coffer dam
constructed on either end of the underground pipe enhances its pollution reduction function
and provides reserve water that is cleaned in oil and water separators and reused for irrigating
its landscape.
And in New Orleans, Louisiana, post offices are reducing vehicle contaminants by replacing
in-ground vehicle lifts with the aboveground variety and by capturing and reusing oil and
antifreeze. This closed-loop system helps to reduce the risk of ground water contamination.
12
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
-------
Postal Service Postal Service Area Environmental Coordinator Bill Hay en oversees operations in Texas and
Takes A Louisiana. He credits the agency's proactive approach with aiding the improvements. "We have
Proactive already addressed a lot of the issues, such as removing underground storage tanks, which
Approach to allows us to move ahead to other challenges," Hayen said.
front 'n pci) Postal Service facilities in California are striving to meet NPDES requirements by identifying
stormwater outfalls and preventing nonpoint source discharges. Many are eliminating runoff
from outside storage areas by placing secondary containment pallets beneath their equipment.
Some post offices are also experimenting with bioremediation using organisms that degrade oil
and grease sludge in their oil-grease separators. This practice reduces the frequency of
expensive clean-outs, saving each site about $1,000 per year. A number of offices have also
switched to biodegradable, nontoxic custodial products. Says Patrick Langsjoen, the
environmental compliance coordinator for the Pacific Area, "Common sense often represents
good business sense. The waste you don't create saves money in the long run."
These field offices have benefited from the agency's environmental commitment. As Dan
DiMiglio, a member of the Postal Service Green Team explains, "You can't have this kind of
policy commitment without a cultural commitment." Adds Langsjoen, "We strive to be in the
vanguard of organizations, both public and private, that are environmentally concerned
corporate citizens."
[For more information, contact Charlie Bravo, Manager, Environmental Management Policy, U.S. Postal
Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2140, Washington, DC 20260. Phone: (202) 268-2000; fax: (202)
268-6016.]
Notes on the Agricultural Environment
Farming Practices in Herrings Marsh Run
A USDA Water Quality Demonstration Project
Third in a series of articles highlighting results from 16 USDA Water Quality Demonstration Projects
included in the 1989 President's Water Quality Initiative.
Duplin County, North Carolina, has one of the highest swine populations in the United States
and ranks in the top six North Carolina counties in production of turkeys and broilers. Wastes
from these highly successful enterprises are a potential threat to groundwater, which is
unusually susceptible to contamination because of the area's shallow water table and
unconfined aquifer. But results of a nutrient management project started seven years ago in the
Cape Fear River Basin are beginning to allay such concerns.
Through the Herrings Marsh Run Demonstration project, farmers in the area have voluntarily
implemented BMPs. Funded by the USDA and managed by the North Carolina Cooperative
Extension Service, the NRCS, and the Farm Service Agency, in conjunction with local agencies
and agribusinesses, the project has encouraged some poultry producers to compost their dead
birds. This practice produces a rich and economical source of nutrients for the growers' crops.
Participating crop producers have also started using waste byproducts from the area's livestock
and poultry operations rather than commercial ammonium nitrate as fertilizer.
Wayne Davis has become so enthusiastic about such BMPs that he has redesigned his entire
operation. Davis, who grows corn, wheat, soybeans, and tobacco on 275 acres, recently added
more than 5,000 hogs to his farm to help provide fertilizer for the crops. Davis also practices
no-till and a conservation cropping rotation, and he has preserved filter strips around his fields
and created grassed waterways to carry and absorb runoff.
Elsewhere in the project area, wetland enhancement and riparian area restoration have further
improved the watershed. Surface and groundwater monitoring already documents the positive
change: less nitrate-nitrogen in the main stream leaving the watershed and an upgraded
biological rating of the stream (from "fair/poor" to "good/fair" during the project).
Improved methods of irrigation using swine wastewater have reduced nitrate concentrations
in groundwater, as confirmed by sampling and a predictive model that closely matches actual
testing data, and the model predicts further reductions in nitrate at least through 1998.
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 13
-------
Farming Practices Duplin County has more to brag about these days than livestock production; it can also be
in Herrings proud of its progress in protecting its water resources.
Marsh Hun ^For more jnformatjon about this project, contact Maurice Cook, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box
(continued) 7619i Raie/gh, NC 27695. Phone: (919) 515-7303. For information about poultry mortality composting,
contact James Parsons, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Duplin County Center, P.O. Box
949, Kenansville, NC 28349. Phone: (910) 296-2143.]
Hops Growers Combine Efficiency and Environmental Concern
Adapted from Oregon's Agricultural Progress, Fall 1996, Oregon State University.
Oregon is second in U.S. hop production behind Washington and grows about 5 percent of the
world's hops about 13 million pounds on roughly 8,600 acres in 1995. But this high-value,
low-acreage crop, worth about $26 million in 1995, puts a premium on land management.
About six years ago, Oregon State University (OSU) researchers began working with
government agencies and hop growers concerned about sustaining the industry economically
and environmentally. The work, a cooperative effort among the OSU Agricultural Experiment
Station, the Oregon Hop Commission, the Oregon Departments of Environmental Quality and
Agriculture, and the growers, is starting to pay off with more efficient, less costly fertilization
that protects the environment.
"We found that many growers could reduce the amount of fertilizer they use without reducing
their yields," says Neil Christensen, a soil scientist with OSU's Agricultural Experiment Station.
This sounds simple, he explains, but it is a hard sell to producers because fertilizer is relatively
inexpensive. At about 30 cents a pound, nitrogen fertilizer is cheap insurance for hop growers
worried about keeping yields high.
"Most growers are, however, aware of other considerations. They know, for example, that too
much nitrate-nitrogen remaining in the soil at harvest is a potential environmental pollutant if it
ends up in the groundwater or surface water," says Christensen. "Ideally, you want to end the
growing season with only small amounts of nitrate-nitrogen remaining in the soil. Excess
nitrate is not only an economic waste, but Oregon's rainy winters tend to move it down into the
groundwater system."
OSU researchers closely monitored nitrogen levels and hop yields and suggested adjustments
that would reduce or eliminate any excess. "We found that many growers could reduce
nitrogen about 50 pounds per acre without reducing yields," says Christensen. Christensen also
suggests that producers use cover crops to keep excess nitrogen from leaching during the winter.
"The private sector is now using soil and plant testing techniques we found useful in
determining nitrogen needs of hops," says Christensen. "We hope they can confirm our results
and refine the management practices."
[For more information, contact Neil Christensen, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State
University, 3017 Agriculture and Life Sciences Building 3073, Corvallis, OR 97331-3002. Phone: (541)
737-5733; fax: (541) 737-5725; e-mail: christen@css.orst.edu.]
News From the States, Tribes and Localities
State Revolving Fund Program Buys
More Than Wastewater Treatment
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund currently offers $20 billion to states to fund critical water
quality projects. Funds traditionally used to construct or improve wastewater treatment plants
now nourish a vast array of projectsagricultural, rural, and urban runoff control; estuary
improvement; wet weather flow control, including storm water and sewer overflows; and
alternative treatment technologies. The common element in these SRF projects is their goal: to
protect surface and ground water.
According to EPA's Office of Wastewater Management, any activity in a state's written nonpoint
source management plan is eligible for SRF. New York, for example, amended its nonpoint
source management plan to include activities addressing the state's most critical water quality
14 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
-------
Sfafe Revolving
Fund Program
Buys
More Than
Wastewater
Treatment
(continued)
needs, thereby becoming eligible to use SRF funds to upgrade many failing municipal landfills
that were contaminating the ground water. Bob Davis, of New York's Division of Engineering
and Program Support, says that while localities often had to wait years to receive grant money
for the work, the SRF program finances the upgrades quickly while state grants are still pending.
In Missouri, the Agricultural and Small Business Development Authority borrows SRF funds
and reloans them to farmers who need the money to purchase animal waste collection equip-
ment or to construct waste storage facilities. Animal waste control eliminates a major nonpoint
source of surface water contamination, and storage facilities allow farmers to hold the waste to
use as fertilizer. The Authority repays the loan with monies received from the farmers. Farmers
pay a slightly higher interest rate, thereby allowing the Authority to maintain a reserve account.
SRF also supports another agricultural project that focuses on an entirely different contaminant.
The Pacheco, California, Water District is constructing canals and a pond to collect salty
subsurface agricultural drainage. After collection, drainage water can be combined with clean
water and reused for irrigation, conserving water overall. Drainage water management also
helps the District control salt loading in the area's rivers. The District's dedicated repayment
source is a surcharge added to the user fee currently charged to growers receiving water from
the District.
How the Clean Water SRF
Program Works
Under this program, EPA provides grants
or seed money to the states and Puerto
Rico to capitalize state loan funds, The
states, in turn, provide low-interest loans to
communities, individuals, and others to
finance high-priority water quality activities.
As money is paid back into the revolving
fund, new loans are made to other
recipients. Currently, the program has over
$20 billion in assets.
Because the program is managed largely
by the states, project eligibility varies
according to each state's program and
priorities. Eligible loan recipients may
include communities, individuals, citizens'
groups, nonprofits, and others. Loans may
be used to enhance the quality of
watersheds through a wide range of water
quality projects; loans may also be used
for ground water resource protection.
Other localities are also using SRF loans. The city of Port Townsend,
Washington,used SRF loans to protect its estuary by purchasing an area
known as Winona Wetlands. Potential development in the area
threatened the wetlands and was expected to create stormwater
management problems. By purchasing the wetlands, the city retained its
natural stormwater basin and protected a valuable wildlife habitat. The city
uses a portion of each household's stormwater utility fee to repay the
$400,000 loan.
SRF monies can also be used to protect ground water. The state of New
York borrowed $40 million to address leaking underground storage
tanks (LUSTs) and associated ground water and soil contamination. It
uses SRF funds to remove LUSTs, install leak detection devices, and
remediate ground water. General obligation bonds are used to repay the
loan, and the state provides an additional incentive: proceeds from bond
issues subsidize the interest rate on loans.
Some SRF projects benefit surface and ground water. Two years ago,
Delaware borrowed about $800,000 to establish a septic system repair
loan program. Since the program's inception, over 60 systems have been
repaired. Homeowners are offered loans up to $10,000 with a 3 percent
interest rate and repayment periods up to 20 years. The state does,
however, investigate the financial capability of each applicant and places
a lien on the property to secure repayment if the homeowner defaults.
Surface and ground water protection is also the aim of an SRF project in Alaska. The cities of
Anchorage, Nome, and Kotzebue have used $12.6 million to monitor, upgrade, and design
landfills that can operate in permafrost and protect the quality of ground water and surface
water. All three cities plan to use tipping/user fees to repay their portions of the loan.
[For more information on the Clean Water SRF, contact Kevin Rosseel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water (4201), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 260-3715: fax:
(202) 260-1156; e-mail: rosseel.kevin@epamail.epa.gov.]
Stakeholders, Cooperation, and Teamwork
Making a Difference in Broad Creek
by Ted Hewitt, Watershed Manager, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
In July 1995, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
closed shellfish harvesting areas in the Broad Creek watershed because of high levels of fecal
coliform bacteria. The action triggered an outcryand a new era of citizen involvement in the
watershed.
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
15
-------
Stakeholders, Drained by a large tidal creek on Hilton Head Island, the Broad Creek watershed is home to
Cooperation, and 25,000 permanent residents. Shellfish harvest is important here, as is tourism, which triples the
Teamwork population during the summer season. The closure forced residents many for the first time
(continued) to acknowledge the impact of rapid development on water quality and quality of life.
The Clean Water Task Force
Responding to citizen concern, representatives of SCDHEC began meeting with concerned
stakeholders in the Broad Creek watershed. The local group represented a wide array of
interests and backgrounds, including oystermen, members of local government, community
associations, sportfishing organizations, and engineers. The stakeholders were searching for
information on the closures and the problems that caused them.
Over time, this group formally organized as the Clean Water Task Force. Endorsed by the
governor, it is now working with the governor's office and SCDHEC to help clean up the waters
in Beaufort County and identify steps and strategies to prevent other county waters from
becoming polluted. Its members play a key role in increasing the public's level of
understanding of shellfish and water quality issues in the Broad Creek watershed.
A Foundation for Local Action
SCDHEC responded to the stakeholders demand for more information by increasing its water
quality monitoring activities and investigative efforts along Broad Creek. By observing the flow
patterns of a biodegradable dye, the agency learned that pollutants discharged into the
headwaters of Broad Creek do not flush out in one tidal cycle. Instead, they slosh around in the
upper part of the creek until they are either diluted through ensuing tidal changes or die off, as
in the case of fecal coliform.
More important for the long term, the investigation also identified and located malfunctioning
septic tanks that are a source of elevated fecal coliform levels. SCDHEC is working to repair
them or tie them into the local sewer system. As a result of these efforts, SCDHEC has upgraded
some of the harvesting classifications from prohibited to restricted.
Coordinating State and Local Efforts
The town of Hilton Head Island also helps bring the state agency and stakeholders together. An
EPA section 319 Minigrant from SCDHEC is used to hold meetings with SCDHEC and
interested stakeholders to determine the kind of best management practices needed in the
watershed. The town also conducts additional monitoring to support SCDHEC's efforts and
will launch an extensive nonpoint source pollution outreach campaign.
The town's interest is impressive. "By taking on this project," Minigrants Coordinator Andy
Miller explains, "the town has taken on ownership of nonpoint source pollution. This local
accountability is essential if nonpoint source is to be controlled,since land use is such an
important factor."
A Shared Pursuit
Broad Creek has evolved into a model of bottom-up stewardship in which stakeholders'
teamwork produced local solutions to nonpoint source pollution. Nearly all participants realize
that stakeholder interest must drive the process, encouraging and supporting agency efforts to
provide the base for local decisions.
[For more information, contact Karen Smith, Bureau of Water, South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201. Phone: (803) 734-4718.]
Where Are They Now?
Shellfish Restrictions Lifted in Washington's Lower Hood Canal
EDITOR'S NOTE: Nonpoint Source News-Notes (August/September 1995, #42) reported on the estab-
lishment of shellfish protection districts in Washington's Puget Sound. Here's an update on that story
from Mason County, Washington.
Nearly four years ago, the Washington Department of Health closed 960 acres of shellfish
tidelands in the Lower Hood Canal watershed. Last October, after revisiting this restricted area,
1 6 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
-------
Where Are They
Now?
(continued)
the department upgraded 500 acres to approved status, reopening the beds to shellfishing. The
upgrade is direct evidence that the Lower Hood Canal Clean Water District has effectively
addressed nonpoint source pollution in the watershed.
When the Lower Hood Canal was closed, shellfish restrictions were routine in Washington.
Shellfishing had been restricted or prohibited in 40,730 acres of commercial shellfish beds since
1981. The economic impact of these closures on the state's $84-million-a-year shellfish industry
resulted in the creation of Shellfish Protection Districts. They were mandatory in jurisdictions
subject to shellfish bed downgrades or closures resulting from nonpoint source pollution;
optional, in other jurisdictions.
Failing on-site septic systems and agricultural runoff in Mason County's Lynch Cove triggered
the formation of the Lower Hood Canal Clean Water District in 1993. From 1994 to 1996, the
district assessed property owners a yearly fee of $52 to support its efforts. Using these funds,
the district began a series of sanitary surveys, inspecting 4,548 of the 5,330 on-site sewage
systems in the watershed. A combination of visual and dye-test surveys revealed failures at 474
sites.
Fortunately, most of these failures were relatively easy and inexpensive to repair. Many
involved little more than connecting graywater discharges, repairing drain fields, and pumping
or replacing septic tanks. County staff identifies failures, assists homeowners, and enforces the
repairs. Homeowners do the repairs and pay the costs. So far, over 300 of the failing systems
have been repaired and the county continues to pursue access to the 703 sites to which property
owners have denied access or have not yet been located.
The district will also use its surveys to hold the ground it has gained. The surveys revealed that
regular inspections and maintenance are key to detecting and correcting problems that are
otherwise likely to escalate over time. With this in mind, the Lower Hood Canal Clean Water
District and other shellfish protection districts in Mason County are creating an operation and
maintenance program to ensure that all systems in the county are properly operated, regularly
inspected, and maintained. This achievement is essential, not only to the reopening of
additional shellfish beds, but in making sure they stay open.
[For more information, contact Mark Tompkins, Mason County Department of Health Services, P.O. Box
1666, Shelton, WA 98584. Phone: (360) 427-9670 ext.353; fax: (360) 427-7798.]
Technical Notes
Quick Nutrient Testing More Than a Convenience
Today's quick and easy alternatives instant coffee, instant breakfast, one-hour photography
rarely save more than time, but the latest time-saving technology for farmers helps keep
excess nitrogen out of fields and streams.
According to Danyal Kasapligil of the Monterey County Water Agency in California, quick
nutrient testing helps growers solve the problem of long turnaround times for nutrient testing.
Conventionally, plant and soil samples are sent to a lab and processed to determine nutrient
levels, and growers may not get results for several weeks. By then, conditions may have
changed, rendering the test less useful in helping growers moderate fertilizer use. With quick
plant tests, nutrient levels can be determined on the spot, and proper irrigation and fertilization
adjustments can be made immediately.
Plant tissue quick tests use electronic sensors connected to nitrogen and potassium meters
inserted into freshly squeezed sap from a plant petiole. Within seconds, a nutrient analysis is
made.
"By using these quick tests growers can monitor nutrient levels throughout the growing season
and apply fertilizers efficiently using drip irrigation," says Kasapligil. Drip irrigation is the
preferred method for applying nutrients; adding fertilizers directly to the water supply makes
driving heavy machinery over mature crops unnecessary.
Quick plant tissue testing also allows growers to monitor the development and nutrient needs
of their crops. Eric Overeem, a private crop consultant in California's Salinas Valley, samples his
clients' crops using quick tests about once a week. "By testing on a weekly basis, I can look for
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
17
-------
Quick Nutrient trends rather than make assumptions," he says. Overeem adds that his clients end up using
Testing about the same amount of fertilizer, but apply it more effectively, increasing their yields about
(continued) 10 to 15 percent. Because farmers can more adequately match the crops' nutrient uptake,
explains Overeem, the quick testing and fertilizer management also leads to decreased nutrient
runoff.
The test has not yet received wide acceptance among growers who are understandably
skeptical about its accuracy and reliability. Kasapligil points out, however, that the quick test
has been standardized to conventional testing. Understanding the growers' hesitancy to
embrace the test whole-heartedly, the Water Resources Agency, Fertilizer Resource Branch, and
the University of California Cooperative Extension have scheduled numerous demonstrations
and field days to help educate growers in the new techniques. Kasapligil and others hope that
with education and outreach growers will take advantage of the benefits of quick plant testing
and irrigation management.
[For more information, contact Danyal Kasapligil, Monterey County Water Resources Agency, P.O. Box
930, Salinas, California 93902. Phone: (408) 755-4798.]
Comparing Monitoring Data
How do aquatic macroinvertebrate samples collected by different methods compare? A recently
completed Wisconsin Water Resources Coordination Project a pilot project of the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality compared macroinvertebrate
data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR), the U.S. Forest Service, and volunteers from the Water Action Volunteer
Water Quality Monitoring Program (WAV). The outcome of the study is significant for groups
seeking to integrate or compare data collected using different sampling methods.
Sampling Regimes
Field staff from each agency and organization sampled the same six streams in the western
Lake Michigan drainage basin during three days in May 1995. The sampling effort was carefully
coordinated to avoid sampling the same spot twice. In addition, monitors approached sampling
locations in a downstream-to-upstream order to avoid capturing organisms dislodged at sites
already monitored. Monitors also took care to avoid marginal areas, such as below bridges and
near impoundments, where they would be likely to encounter large amounts of silt or
vegetation that would sharply influence their results.
After being preserved in the field, most samples were sent to the same lab for analysis. The
WAV monitors, however, identified the aquatic macroinvertebrates in their own samples in the
field.
In addition to collecting and identifying the samples, the monitors made visual observations
about watershed quality and riparian and in-stream habitat.
Converging Results on Water Quality
Hilsenhoff s Biotic Index (HBI) was used to analyze the data. The analysis revealed that the
macroinvertebrate samples collected by the three agencies interpreted water quality conditions
similarly for all six streams. The HBI estimates water quality based on the tolerance of aquatic
macroinvertebrates to organic pollution and resulting reductions in dissolved oxygen. The
resulting water quality values showed little variability. The HBI value for each sample collected
at a given stream fell within a single unit of the median HBI value for all samples collected at
that stream.
Variations in Other Data
Macroinvertebrate samples collected from the same riffle at each stream contained similar taxa,
but the number of individuals within the taxa varied. This variation is probably attributable to
the difference between sampling methods. For instance, the USGS method of digging into the
substrate increased the proportion of taxa from this habitat.
Several Forest Service samples were dominated by macroinvertebrate taxa not dominant in
samples collected by other agencies for the same stream. This result may also be attributable to
the sampling method, since the Forest Service does not limit its monitors to one location.
18 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APR IUM AY 1997, ISSUE #48
-------
Comparing Instead, it requires each monitor to obtain 125 or more individual organisms. As a result, Forest
Monitoring Data Service monitors may target certain microhabitats abundant with a particular taxa. An
(continued) additional bias in this approach may result if monitors choose the larger, more visible organisms
in their effort to reach the benchmark.
Net size is another issue. The study showed that WDNR collected the greatest number of taxa
from five of the six streams while the Forest Service collected the fewest. This difference may be
attributed to the fact that the Forest Service uses a larger mesh size than WDNR. Another cause
could be that WDNR generally sampled a larger area and may have encountered more
microhabitats.
Visual watershed survey results also varied significantly. No relationship could be found
between physical watershed characteristics and the macroinvertebrate communities. Personal
bias, differences in observations, and previous knowledge of the site are factors that may have
influenced these results.
Interpreting the Findings
The study was successful in identifying some limits to sharing macroinvertebrate data collected
using different sampling methods. The results suggest that shared monitoring data can
accurately determine water quality using robust measures such as the HBI. In contrast, data
sharing may not be feasible in cases where information on specific species assemblages is
needed. The study makes a strong case for considering differences in field collection methods
when comparing data.
[For more information, contact Mike Miller, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 101 South
Webster Street, Madison, Wl 53707. Phone: (608) 267-2753; lax: (608) 267-2800; e-mail:
millema@dnr.state.wi.us. Or contact the U.S. Geological Survey, 6417 Normandy Lane, Madison, Wl
53719. Phone: (608) 276-3810.]
DNA Fingerprinting Aids Investigation
Fecal Coliform Sources Traced to Unlikely Suspects
Tracking the source of fecal coliform contamination may not sound as exciting as reading a
good mystery. But recent research into fecal coliform pollution in the southern Chesapeake Bay
had more than enough suspense to qualify as a mystery, including several suspects and high
tech investigative methods. By systematically tracking clues in the field and using DNA
fingerprinting in the lab, researchers at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
appear to have cracked the case.
According to George M. Simmons Jr., Alumni Distinguished Professor at Virginia Tech, tracking
the source of fecal coliform contamination was actually a spinoff of other research he was
conducting on Virginia's Eastern Shore. It started when Roger Buyrn, a local land owner and
clam grower, approached him with the case. Buyrn faced losing his clam business because of
contaminated harvest areas in a tidal creek. Harvest area closures can have serious negative
impacts on the local economy, and they are becoming commonplace. According to the Division
of Shellfish Sanitation in Richmond, Virginia, the number of acres condemned over the last two
decades for shellfish harvest in Virginia has increased from 62,272 acres in 1970, to 98,826 acres
in 1994. Hoping to avoid condemnation of his own harvest area, Buyrn opened up his land to
Simmons and his team of student investigators.
Rounding Up the Usual Suspects
Nonpoint fecal coliform sources may come from human waste, agricultural areas, or wildlife.
Although identifiable sources of coliform contamination are not always evident, fecal coliform
sources are often linked to faulty on-site waste disposal systems. Few of the inlets in the study
area however, were inhabited, intensifying the mystery.
The researchers tracked fecal coliform levels in the field by sampling at land/water interfaces
and across marshes or up creeks. Simmons points out that rigorous sampling in creek beds,
marshes, and each tiny rivulet that drained to them was the major tool for tracing the fecal
coliform signals. Once the general source areas were identified, the study group monitored
them extensively.
APRILJMAY1997, ISSUE #48 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 19
-------
DNA All along, Simmons and his colleagues believed that the sources would be anthropogenic in
Fingerprinting nature. "It took me about a year to come to grips with the fact that the fecal coliform were not
Aids Investigation coming from a leaky septic tank or other effluent," said Simmons. "It got to the point where I
(continued) was climbing trees to see if I could see any potential sources (i.e., houses), but there weren't any.
We all were pretty baffled."
Breaking the Case
Simmons used DNA fingerprinting of £. Coli to confirm his growing suspicion that the sources
were not human. Simmons's group collected fresh fecal samples from raccoon, waterfowl, otter,
muskrat, deer, and humans in the area and analyzed and characterized the DNA of coliform
found in the samples. The result was a library of more than 200 DNA patterns distributed
through more than 700 E. Coli strains. In the process, the researchers developed a DNA
dichotomous key and an index of descriptions for the known strains.
Identifying unknown sources was a challenging endeavor. Some E. Coli strains are specific to
certain animal species; others may contain several different strains. "A total of 88 E. Coli strains
from unknown sources were fingerprinted, and of those 88 strains, 58 of them resulted in some
degree of [species] identification using the dichotomous key of E. Coli strains from known
sources." In addition, 22 of the strains closely matched known strains in the existing library.
Simmons noted that only eight of the 88 unknown samples collected from the study area could
have come from a human source. Comparing E.coli from the samples against the fingerprints of
known strains in the DNA library, Simmons traced the sources to deer and raccoon.
Victim's Reprieve
During the winter of 1993, several hundred animals, including deer, raccoon, and muskrat,
were removed from the Buyrn property and other nearby areas and by spring 1994, fecal
coliform had decreased by one to two orders of magnitude. Threatened areas of the tidal creeks
were reopened or escaped closure.
Epilogue
Major funding for this project came from the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, and from the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, Coastal Resources Management Program through a grant from NOAA.
In his next case, Simmons hopes to expand the DNA library to see if it is applicable to other
parts of the Chesapeake Bay and beyond. As funding becomes available, he would also like to
develop libraries for agricultural and urban areas which would also include stormwater runoff.
"This research to date indicates that field and laboratory methods, alone or in combination,
provide a very high likelihood that nonpoint fecal coliform sources can be identified and
remediated for the improvement of water quality," concludes Simmons.
[For more information, contact George Simmons, Jr., Department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060. Phone: (540) 231-6407); e-mail: gesimmon@vt.edu]
Notes on Education and Outreach
Education and Outreach in Action
New Ecosystem Learning Centers in Boston and Tampa. Coastal Ecosystem
Learning Centers at the New England Aquarium in Boston and the Florida Aquarium in Tampa
are the first in a network of educational facilities that Coastal America plans to establish
nationwide. The centers are a public-private partnership; federal agencies working in the
coastal arena can "piggyback" their public education and outreach efforts on these centers to
increase the public's understanding and appreciation of coastal and marine issues. For more
information, contact Barbara Elkus, Coastal America, 300 Seventh Street SW, Suite 400,
Washington, DC 20250. Phone (202) 401-9928; e-mail: elkus@fas.usda.gov.
Florida Certified Yards. The Florida Certified Yards program rewards residents of the
Indian River lagoon watershed who practice lagoon-friendly landscaping. Residents
accumulate points in the form of "inches" for cutting back on irrigation and fertilization, and
2O NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
-------
Education and for planting native vegetation that attracts birds and other wildlife. When a homeowner's
Outreach in "yardstick" measures the full 36 inches, the Extension Service declares the property a Certified
Action Florida Yard and the owner receives a sign to display. The program helps reduce stormwater
(continued) runoff, which causes an estimated 80 percent of the pollution in Indian River Lagoon. For more
information, contact the University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Gainesville, FL
32601.
At-Risk Kids Help Build Boat for Study of Marine and Wetland Ecology. In these
days of doing more with less, the Alexandria, Virginia, Seaport Foundation provides apprentice
training and mentoring for at-risk youth through the construction of historical watercraft
replicas. For example, The Potomac, one of 60 wooden boats constructed during the last four
years, has become a floating classroom. In its first year of operation, The Potomac, which
accommodates 30 people, has helped over 300 students from elementary and middle schools,
summer camps, universities, and the general public study the marine and wetland ecology of
the Potomac River. For more information, contact Joe Youcha, Alexandria Seaport Foundation,
100 S. Lee Street, Jones Point Park, Alexandria, VA 223114. Phone: (703) 549-7078.
Androscoggin Canoe Trek. For 19 days last June, people along New England's
Androscoggin River celebrated the river's clean up by canoeing the length of the river from its
source in New Hampshire to its mouth. The Androscoggin empties into the Kennebec River in
Maine just 15 miles from the sea. People along the way joined the trek for a day or more, as they
chose. For more information, contact Norm Marcotte, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, 12235 Central Drive, Presque Isle, Maine 04769-2094. Phone: (207) 287-7727; e-mail:
norm.gmarcotte@state.me.us.
Michigan Farmers Cruise Great Lakes. Farmers in western Michigan conduct water
quality and sediment testing in Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan aboard the research and
education vessel W.G. Jackson. The cruise will help farmers make better decisions, says George
Bird, training coordinator for USDA's North-Central region. The training is funded by Congress
through USDA's Sustainable Agriculture program; the ship, by a $250,000 challenge grant from
Muskegon businessman and environmentalist, William G. Jackson, with a matching grant from
the state of Michigan, and significant gifts from the Brunswick Foundation and the SPX
Corporation.
The 65-foot W.G. Jackson joins a smaller ship, the 45-foot D.J. Angus, as part of the Michigan
Water Resource Institute's Outreach Education program, which offers a unique learning
experience to west Michigan students from grade school to college. Together, the two ships
carried 6,268 people on 248 cruises during the summer of 1996. For more information, contact
Stephanie Tuttle at the Water Resources Institute, Grand Valley State University, One Campus
Drive, Allendale, MI 49401. Phone: (616) 895-6611.
Mid-Atlantic Puts Recreational Boaters on the Map
Makes Sewage Disposal Easier
The Delaware Estuary Program and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in
conjunction with the coastal zone management programs of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and
Delaware have developed a Boat Sewage Disposal Facility Location Map for the Delaware
Estuary and the New Jersey coast. The map encourages recreational boaters to practice
environmentally sound boating activities and to find conveniently located boat sewage disposal
facilities. Copies of the map have been distributed to local marina/boat sewage disposal
facilities in the Delaware Estuary area.
[For more information, contact the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (717) 787-2529;
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection at (609)633-7029; or the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control at (302)739-3451. For the location of pumpout facilities
anywhere in the United States, call 1-800-ASK-FISH. This toll-free number is sponsored by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the American Sportfishing Association's Sportfishing Promotion Council.]
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
21
-------
New Stream Videos
Two new videos encourage people to take care of their streams. The Stream Keeper features Bill
Nye the Science Guy and targets students in fourth through seventh grades. Restoring America's
Streams is for older students and general audiences. Both discuss watersheds and the natural
flow of streams.
The Stream Keeper. The Stream Keeper presents a graphic illustration of the water cycle
and demonstrates a topographical map by drawing contour lines on a person's knuckles. For
information about The Stream Keeper, contact the Adopt-A Stream Foundation, Northwestern
Stream Center, 600-128th Street, SE, Everett, WA 98208. Phone:(206) 316-8592.
Restoring America's Streams. Restoring America's Streams follows a diagnosis/
prescription format, and shows students installing bioengineering structures and planting trees
in a riparian zone. To order Restoring America's Streams, send $20 to the Izaak Walton League of
America, Stream Doctor Project, 707 Conservation Lane, Gaithersburg, MD 20878-2983. Phone:
(800) Bug-IWLA.]
Reviews and Announcements
Website Links Great Lakes Resources
The Great Lakes Information Network website, a cooperative effort of agencies and
organizations throughout the Great Lakes region, has created a one-stop-shop to the Great
Lakes. Accessible at http://www.great-lakes.net/, the network's site provides information on
the Great Lakes region. Topics include the economy, environment, human health, tourism,
news, events, and weather. The website provides links to all network members so no matter
where surfers get in, they can also access information from the network's other partners.
[For more information, contact Carol Ratza, Great Lakes Information Network Director, Great Lakes
Commission, 400 Fourth Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103. Phone: (313) 665-9135; fax: (313) 665-4370;
e-mail: cratza@glc.org.]
Applied River Morphology A Review
by Neil Berg, USDA Forest Service National Water Quality Liaison to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Applied River Morphology. Dave Rosgen, with illustrations by Hilton Lee Silvey. Pagosa Springs,
CO: Wildland Hydrology Books, 1996. Hardcover, 390 pages, $89.
In his most recent accomplishment, noted hydrologist Dave Rosgen collects the nuts, bolts, and
underlying foundations for a river classification system based on stream system dynamics. That
is his major concern, but a powerful subtheme, which may actually be of more interest to
News-Notes readers, is his application of the system to stream restorations.
Luna Leopold (to whom the book is dedicated) emphasizes the importance of the system:
Because the classification depends on knowledge of processes, it is useful
not only to describe channels, but also to evaluate how a stream will react
through time. . . . As a result, [Rosgen] quickly establishes himself as a leader
in river restoration, river control planning, and channel maintenance without
dependence on steel and concrete (Foreword, p vi).
Establishing Stream Classifications
Rosgen's classification system incorporates four levels. At Level I, a broad geomorphic
determination is made to classify streams into eight primary types regardless of channel
material. These descriptions are broad characterizations typically identifiable from aerial
photographs and maps, such as "very steep, deeply entrenched, debris transport, torrent
streams."
Level II takes up the first level's description of stream types and subdivides them by six
different channel materials (bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand, and silt-clay).
22 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
-------
Applied River
Morphology
A Review
(continued)
Simultaneously, using quantitative field measures of channel characteristics (such as
entrenchment ratio, width-to-depth ratio, slope, and sinuosity), streams are segregated into
definable groups with predictable patterns of variation.
Level III assessment focuses on analysis of a stream's actual condition and its departures from
stream potential. Here, quantitative values for riparian vegetation, flow regime, stream size and
order, depositional patterns, debris and channel blockages, and channel stability are determined
and compared to defined ranges of "desired" values for these characteristics. Departures from
desired characteristics could also be determined by comparing river condition at different
points in space, i.e., upstream and downstream of human or naturally induced changes to the
stream system.
Level IV verifies the previous level's process-based assessments of stream potential, condition,
and stability through more intensive observation and analysis of sediment condition,
streamflow, and stability measurements. After reach conditions have been verified, these data
are used to establish empirical relationships for testing, validating, and improving the
prediction of velocity, hydraulic geometry, sediment transport characteristics, bank erosion
rates, and channel stability.
(Readers wanting additional information on this system are referred to the discussion by J.R.
Miller and J.B. Ritter in Catena 27:295-299 and D. Rosgen's reply in the same volume, pages
301-307.)
Applying Stream Characteristics
Rosgen bases his approach to stream restorations on several pivotal questions:
What problems are observed?
What causes these problems?
What stream type should this be?
What stream type is probably most stable under the present hydrology and sediment
regime?
Armed with this information and the stream classification method, managers can attempt to
recreate the river's preproblem dimension, pattern, and profile to reestablish its equilibrium,
rather than invoke piecemeal patching of unstable banks with riprap, revetments, or other
band-aid materials.
Rosgen Offers Short Courses
This summer and fall Wildland Hydrology will
hold a series of river training classes in Pagosa
Springs, Colorado. The courses offer a wide
range of instructional levels, beginning with the
fundamentals in "Applied Fluvial
Geomorphology," taught by Rosgen and Luna
Leopold, and culminating in the more complex
"River Restoration and Natural Channel Design."
Fees are $1,350 for five-day courses; $2,600 for
nine-day courses. For more information, contact
Wildland Hydrology, 157649 US Highway 160,
Pagosa Springs, CO 81147. Phone: (970)
264-7100; fax: (970) 264-7121.
Thus, Rosgen advocates nonstructural approaches to restoration
based on reinforcing natural river channel behavior and emphasizes
understanding the dynamics of an area's stable channels as models
for conditions at the restoration site. He uses the classification
scheme to get precise estimates of the hydraulic relationships at
work in specific stream and valley morphologies and to establish
guidelines for selecting stable stream types for a range of
dimensions, patterns, and profiles that are in balance with the river's
valley slope and confinement, depositional materials, and
streamflow and sediment regime.
Rosgen, now the principal hydrologist and owner of Wildland
Hydrology in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, has designed and
constructed numerous river restoration projects, taught short courses
on stream classification and restoration, and authored many
technical papers. In 1993, EPA awarded Rosgen its Outstanding
Achievement award for his stream restoration research and technical accomplishments. In
Applied River Morphology, he contributes new insights to our understanding of the many
complex and interrelated processes that shape the modern river. His words in the introduction
tell us why: "When you gain insight through observations of the river, you want to help others
gain the same insight. This is the only way collective progress may be made to prevent the
decline of river quality."
[For more information, contact Wildland Hydrology, 157649 US Highway 160, Pagosa Springs, CO 81147.
Phone: (970) 264-7100; fax: (970) 264-7121.]
APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
23
-------
EPA Watershed Academy Offers Training Courses
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has initiated a new program to provide watershed
approach training to local, state, tribal, and federal officials and private practitioners of
watershed management. The Watershed Academy provides short courses and related reference
materials about watershed processes, functions, and management techniques. Training courses
are offered several times a year, as funding permits, usually in EPA regional offices or other
central locations.
Doug Norton, an environmental scientist with the Watershed Branch of EPA's Office of Water,
says that the agency has been working on getting the Watershed Academy established for more
than a year because "people are always asking about training in the watershed approach." And
he adds, "we're trying to be creative beyond our own resources for training." In this case,
creativity means stretching a small training budget to include the Watershed Academy's own
core courses, special course offerings cosponsored with others, developing a catalog of EPA and
non-EPA course listings, and watershed reference materials. The Academy will also cooperate
with other agencies on watershed course development and maintain a website for distance
learning.
The program's message and courses center, Norton says, on elements of the watershed
approach that are important to the successful management of a watershed: communications,
science, and organizational management elements.
Courses Offered
Courses currently being offered include a two-day course titled "The Statewide Approach to
Watershed Management," which is the Academy's most requested course. Another popular
course is "The Executive Overview of the Watershed Approach," a one-day (or half-day) course
for senior management. "Principles of Watershed Protection and Management" is an
introduction to working in watersheds. A fourth course, "Getting in Step: a Pathway to Effective
Outreach in Your Watershed," concentrates on the communications elements in the watershed
approach. "Watershed Management Tools" will introduce several of the most useful techniques
for watershed analysis and management.
In addition to its own courses, the Academy maintains an Internet Catalog of Watershed
Training Opportunities containing information about dozens of other watershed-oriented
training courses offered by local, state, and federal agencies, and private organizations.
Other Activities
Norton said plans are underway for a distance learning program called Academy 2000, which
will permit any watershed manager or interested party with Internet access to participate in an
Academy workshop.
The proposal calls for 20 to 50 modules, each requiring one to two hours running time. The
planned format includes a class lecture with visuals and accompanying narrative.
The Academy also cosponsors special training events on different aspects of the watershed
approach as resources permit, and it is also involved in the Interagency Watershed Training
Cooperative, an ongoing multiagency effort, to make better use of the resources available for
training by jointly developing courses, sharing scientific expertise, facilities, and other
resources. Initial efforts have involved EPA, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,
NRCS, Army Corps of Engineers, and Fish and Wildlife Service.
Watershed Academy FY97 Schedule
June 7 Watersheds 103: "Getting in Step: a Pathway to Effective Outreach in Your
Watershed," Kingston, RI. Contact Elizabeth Herron at (401) 874-2905.
June 18-19 Watersheds 102: "The Statewide Approach to Watershed Management,"
Helena, MT. Contact Gary Engman (406) 444-5320.
September 16-17 Watersheds 105: "Watershed Management Tools Primer," Dallas TX.
Contact Susan Branning (214) 665-8022.
24 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
-------
EPA Watershed m September 23-24 Watersheds 101/102: "Principles of Watershed Protection and
Academy Offers Management/The Statewide Approach to Watershed Management." Contact Irish Garrigan,
Training Courses fax. (617) 555.4940.
[For more information, contact Doug Norton, fax: (202) 260-1977; or visit the Watershed Academy Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy.htm.]
Request for Proposals from AWWARF
The American Water Works Association Research Foundation's 1997 research agenda focuses on
public health protection, utility management, and stewardship of resources. The research topics
range from Cryptosporidium and emerging waterborne pathogens to customer perceptions and
water resources.
The foundation's Board of Trustees has selected 53 projects worth $9.1 million for 1997 funding.
The board approved $6.6 million to sponsor solicited research projects, $1.35 million for
unsolicited projects, $365,000 for tailored collaboration projects, and $719,000 for other projects.
Requests for proposals have been issued for 36 projects. The overall 1997 budget includes
cooperative funding from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Electric Power Research Institute,
the International Life Sciences Institute, and individual utilities.
Requests for proposals for solicited projects are available on the AWWARF web site
(www.awwarf.com). Proposals submitted in response to RFPs must be postmarked by May 5
for projects with budgets up to $250,000 in AWWARF funds. Proposals seeking $250,000 or
more in AWWARF funds must be postmarked by July 15.
West Virginia's Troubled Waters
Dramatic footage of West Virginia streams impacted by acid mine drainage distinguishes this
video produced by Downstream Alliance and the Laurel Run Watershed Association. Troubled
Waters takes an eye-opening look at the effects of acid mine drainage on water quality and the
wisdom that motivated citizens discover in their willingness to confront the issue.
The flow of acid mine drainage in West Virginia's waters, the chemical reaction that causes it,
and its effects on aquatic life and the food chain are vividly portrayed in this video through the
expert testimony of three scientists a fisheries biologist, a geologist, and an entomologist.
Nevertheless, the video's message is most compelling in its conclusion, which draws on several
eye-witness accounts of grassroots action in a region once thought to be the "worst" example of
acid mine drainage in the country.
[To order Troubled Waters: Acid Mine Drainage in Northern West Virginia, send $6 (price includes
postage) to the Laurel Run Watershed Association, Route 1, Box 261 A, Independence, WV 26374. For
more information about the video, contact Craig Mains, Downstream Alliance, P.O. Box 1492,
Morgantown, WV 26505. Phone: (800) 624-8301.]
Dredged Material Management Guidance Out in Draft
The National Dredging Team has developed draft guidance for dredged material management.
The Team, formed in 1995, includes representatives from EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, U.S.
Maritime Administration, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The guidance seeks to
make the regulatory process more efficient and timely,
include a wider range of stakeholders in regional and local dredging planning
processes, and
reduce pollution at its source to help decrease sediment contamination.
The Team views dredged material as a resource that can be used for beneficial purposes when
possible. For example, Maryland and the U.S. Congress have allocated funds for the first phase
of a 20-year project that will rebuild Poplar Island in the Chesapeake Bay using dredged
material. Poplar Island has severely eroded over the years, but clean dredged material could
APRIUMAY 1997, ISSUE #48 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 25
-------
Dredged Material replace saltmarsh habitat and uplands, as well as provide a safer alternative to dumping
Management dredged material into a nearby deep trough, where it releases nutrients into the Bay.
Guidance Out in Construction is expected to start in the summer of 1997.
. Dra'' [To obtain a copy of the Dredged Material Management Guidance, contact EPA's Oceans and Coastal
(continued) Protection Division at (202) 260-1952. Or contact Rick Worthington, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Policy
Division, 20 Massachusetts Ave, NE; Washington, DC 20314. Phone (202) 761-0120.
[For more information about Poplar Island, contact John Gill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake
Bay Field Office, 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive, Annapolis, MD 211401. Phone (410) 573-4529.]
NPS Electronic Information Exchange News
The NFS Information Exchange has evolved from a modem-based electronic bulletin board to a
system of Internet resources. Documents, including News-Notes issues 1-45, are now located
on the NPS Information Exchange World Wide Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/npsie.html.
NPSINFO is the Information Exchange's e-mail discussion group.
To subscribe to this group, send an e-mail message to listserver@unlxmail.rtpnc.epa.gov.
Include the following information in your message: subscribe NPSINFO yourfirstname
yourlastname.
After you subscribe, you will receive a welcome message explaining the discussion list and how
to post messages to it.
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. A more complete listing is available
on the NPS Information Exchange World Wide Web Site (see the NPS Information Exchange box in
this issue for directions on how to get on). NOTE: the schedule and locations of EPA's Watershed
Training Courses may be found on page 24.
Meetings and Events
1997
June
9-10 Vegetation Identification for Wetland Delineation, Basking Ridge, NJ, and Andover Township, NJ. One in a
series of wetlands workshops; followed by Hydric Soils, June 11-12, and Methodology of Delineating
Wetlands, June 13-14. Also available other days/locations. Contact Cooke College Office of
Continuing Professional Education, P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0231. Phone: (908)
932-9271; fax: (908) 932-1187.
29-July 3 Water Resources, Education, Training, and Practice: Opportunities for the Next Century, Keystone, CO.
Contact American Water Resources Association, 950 Herndon Parkway, Suite 300, Herndon, VA
22070-5531. Phone: (703) 904-1225; fax: (703) 904-1228; e-mail: awrahq@aol.com. Or contact
Universities Council on Water Resources, 4543 Faner Hall, Mail Code 4526, Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 62901-4526. Phone: (618) 536-7571; fax: (618) 453-2671.
July
20-26 Coastal Zone '97: Charting the future of Coastal Zone Management, Boston, MA. Contact Jessica Cogan.
Phone: (202) 260-7154; fax: (202)260-9960; e-mail: cogan.jessica@epamail.epa.gov.
October
19-23 Annual Conference and Symposium on Conjunctive Use of Water Resources: Aquifer Storage and Recovery,
Long Beach, CA. Contact American Water Resources Association, 950 Herndon Pkwy, Ste. 300,
Herndon, VA 20170-5531. Phone: (703) 904-1225; fax: (703) 904-1228; e-mail: awrahq@aol.com. WWW
Home Page: http://www.awra.org/~awra.
November
16-19 International Conference on Advances in Ground-Water Hydrology - A Decade of Progress, Tampa,
FL. Contact: American Institute of Hydrology, 2499 Rice St., Ste. 135, St. Paul, MN 55113. Phone: (612)
484-8169; fax: (612) 484-8357; e-Mail: AIHydro@aol.com.
26 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIL/MAY 1997, ISSUE #48
-------
Coupon
r
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon #48
(Mail or FAX this coupon to us)
Our Mailing Address: NPS News-Notes, c/o Terrene Institute, 4 Herbert Street,
Alexandria, VA 22305
Our FAX Number: NPS News-Notes (202) 260-1517 and (703) 548-6299
Use this Coupon to Q share your clem mter Experiences
(check one or more) __
LI Ask for Information
LI Make a Suggestion
Write your story, ask your question, or make your suggestions here:
Attach additional pages if necessary.
LI Please add my name to the mailing list to receive News-Notes free of charge.
LI Change my address. (Please send us your old address, too.)
Your Name:
Organization:
Address:
City/State:
Phone:
Date:
Zip:
FAX:
MARCH/APRIL 1997, ISSUE #48
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 27
------- |