April/May 1998
#51
N on point 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
President's Clean Water Action Plan Features NPS Control A Clearer
Path to Cleaner Water
Ambitious measures to cut polluted runoff are among the initiatives included in President
Clinton's new Clean Water Action Plan. Unveiling the plan February 19, just four months after
federal agencies led by EPA and USDA took on the task, the President said, "We must curtail the
runoff from farms, from city streets, and from other diffuse sources that get into our waterways
and pollute them. Every child deserves to grow up with water that is pure to drink, lakes that
are safe for swimming, and rivers that are teeming with fish."
"I was pleased to be part of an amazingly collaborative effort between EPA, DOI, USDA,
NOAA, DOD, and many others to develop this plan. The plan not only lays out a clearer path
toward cleaner water, but provides new energy and proposes new resources to get there. States
and tribes will be leading the way, supported by a strong, coordinated network of federal
agencies," said Geoff Grubbs of EPA's Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
Four broad elements form the plan's foundation: a watershed approach, strong federal and state
standards, natural resources stewardship, and informed citizens and officials.
Watershed Approach Encourages State, Tribe, and Local Leadership
Reflecting the collaborative design of the team of federal agencies that developed the plan, the
proposal emphasizes a watershed approach that makes troubled watersheds a priority. While
state, tribal, and local governments will take the lead in assessing, restoring, and protecting their
water resources; the federal government will provide much of the funding, including small
grants to local communities and organizations.
Inside this Issue
Notes on the National Scene
Clean Water Action Plan Features NPS Control 1
TMDL Policies Stress Action 2
EPA Releases National Inventory of Contaminated Sediment .... 3
Task Force Examines Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico 5
Notes on Watershed Management
Tampa Bay Investigates Atmospheric Deposition 6
Scientist Links Nutrient Runoff with Forest Defoliation 8
News from the States
States Investing in Water Quality Get Habitat Dividends 9
States L'pping the Ante to Protect Riparian Areas 11
Agricultural Notes
Conservation Tillage Acres Outnumber Conventional Agriculture
Acres in the United States 12
Urban Notes
Smart Growth: Imperative for the Future 12
EPA Proposes Extending the NPDES Storm Water Permit Program
to Smaller Municipalities and Construction Sites 14
Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Golf Courses Good for More
Than Just "Birdies" 14
Technical and Research Notes
From City Trash to Farm Treasure 16
Nontoxic Paint Makes Boat Hull Maintenance Safer
for Aquatic Life 17
Education News
Standard Educational Principles Apply to Watershed
Outreach 18
Education and Outreach in Action Column 19
Reviews and Announcements
Waters, Rivers and Creeks 21
The Ecology of Hope 21
Conservation Design for Stormwater Management 23
Other Resources 24
Reflections
Haiku by the Slough 25
DATEBOOK 25
COUPON 27
All issues of News-Notes are accessible on the NPS Information Exchange on EPA's World Wide Web Site:
. See page 24 for log-on information.
-------
President's Clean
Water Action Plan
Features NFS Control
The Action Plan espouses over 100 actions that will directly benefit people and ecosystems
including
restoring 25,000 miles of stream corridors on public lands by 2005,
achieving a net increase of wetlands 100,000 acres per year by 2005,
establishing 2 million miles of conservation buffers on agricultural lands by 2002, and
expanding coastal research, monitoring, and polluted runoff control programs.
Strong Standards
The Action Plan includes proposals for establishing federal nutrient criteria for nitrogen and
phosphorus and new federal regulations on large feedlots, including some poultry operations.
The national sweep of such regulations will provide a level playing field for states torn between
tougher water quality laws and the prospect of losing agricultural enterprises (see box).
The federal government will also take an active role in protecting and restoring water quality on
millions of acres of federal land. For example, the departments of Agriculture and the Interior
will work together to develop a unified national federal policy to promote watershed protection
in areas managed or overseen by the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Office of Surface Mining.
In its first action under the Clean Water Action Plan, EPA
released a draft strategy for minimizing the public health
and environmental impacts from livestock feedlots. The
strategy to reduce animal waste runoff calls for
inspections, new water pollution control requirements,
more technical assistance and research, and increased
enforcement for large animal feeding operations. EPA
invites public comment on the draft until May 1, 1998.
Copies of the draft animal feeding operation strategy
may be obtained by calling (202) 260-7786. The strategy
may also be reviewed at .
Written comments may be sent to Ruby Cooper-Ford,
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW (4203), Washington, DC
20460 or e-mailed to .
EPA is also releasing a final enforcement strategy, which
increases inspections based on environmental risk. EPA
and states will inspect all high-priority operations within
three years. Lower priority feedlots will be inspected
within five years. States will not face the new
enforcement measures alone, however. Along with
increased enforcement, EPA plans to provide inspector
training and other compliance support.
Copies of the final Compliance Assurance Implement-
ation Plan for Confined Animal Feeding Operations may
be accessed at or ordered by contacting Michelle
Stevenson at (202) 564-2355.
Funding Increases
To achieve the plan's goals, the President's budget proposal
calls for spending an additional $568 million in fiscal year
1999 and a total of $2.3 billion in additional funds over the
next five years (subject to congressional approval). The plan
proposes to increase NPS program (section 319) grants by $95
million and other EPA clean water grants by $20 million. If
approved by Congress, the budgets would increase funding
for USDA's EQIP program by $100 million, NRCS program
funding by $20 million, and the Forest Service's fund for
federal lands improvement by $69 million. Other allocations
are also expected:
$24 million to the Bureau of Land Management for
improving water quality on federal lands,
$22 million for USGS monitoring and assessment
programs,
$6 million to the Fish and Wildlife Service for use in
wetlands restoration,
$5 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for water
quality projects on tribal lands,
$11 million for the Army Corps of Engineers' wetlands
program, and
$25 million for the Corps' Challenge 21 floodplain
restoration initiative.
The budget proposal will also include $22 million for NOAA,
including $12 million to help states complete their coastal
NPS management plans. NOAA and EPA have been working
together on the Coastal Nonpoint Program for seven years.
[For more information, or to access the Action Plan, visit or
. To order copies of the Action Plan, call (800)490-9198.]
TMDL Policies Stress Action
"A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) improves water quality when the pollutant allocations
are implemented, not when a TMDL is established," declared Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Water, as he announced new TMDL policies last August. "When
the state or EPA identifies a water quality impairment on a section 303(d) list and then
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
TMDL Policies establishes the TMDL, we begin [the] water quality-based process, not end [it]/' he pointed out
Stress Action in a memorandum to EPA Regional Administrators and Regional Water Division Directors. The
(continued) policies are intended to help states meet the requirements of Clean Water Act section 303(d) and
take needed actions to implement approved TMDLs.
The TMDL process begins when a state identifies and prioritizes specific waters in which
problems are known to exist or are expected. States then set limits for pollutant loadings from
the point and nonpoint sources for each listed water resource. EPA approves the state's list and
TMDLs or sets the limits itself, if necessary. Point source reductions are implemented through
National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Federal, state, tribal, and local
governments can employ a wide variety of authorities, programs, and initiatives (regulatory
and nonregulatory) to reduce nonpoint source loadings.
The first part of the new policy directs each EPA Region to secure a specific written agreement
with each state establishing a schedule for setting TMDLs for all listed waters. The schedules
range from 8 to 13 years in most cases, and states are urged to integrate them with the
Environmental Performance Partnership process (see NFS Neivs-Notes #47). The schedules were
due April 1,1998, along with 1998 state lists of impaired waters.
According to the second part of the new policy, states should also submit plans for
implementing the load allocations for listed waters that are impacted mainly by nonpoint source
pollution. States may submit implementation plans to EPA as revisions to state water quality
management plans, coupled with a proposed TMDL.
[For more information, contact Amy Sosin (4503F), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
E-mail: . Or visit the TMDL web site
]
EPA Releases National Inventory of Contaminated Sediment
The U.S. EPA's first national survey of sediment quality in the nation's waterbodies identified 96
watersheds (7 percent of those surveyed) where widespread sediment contamination poses
potential risks to humans, fish, and wildlife. The survey revealed that while the majority of
watersheds probably are safe, at least one station in nearly two-thirds of the watersheds
examined is contaminated.
The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, released
January 7, confirms that "contaminated sediment is a significant problem in many watersheds
around the country." EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Robert Perciasepe said, "The report
underscores the need to finish the job of cleaning up our nation's waters and [preventing] their
continued pollution."
Sediment Contamination a Nationwide Issue
According to the report, every state has some sediment contamination. The worst sites are
clustered around large urban areas and industrial centers and in regions affected by agricultural
and urban runoff. PCBs, mercury, and DDT are the most frequently found contaminants at the
problem sites.
Although use of many of these substances has been banned or restricted for years, they can
and do persist for extended periods in the sediment, binding to particles that fish ingest as
they feed. The contaminants accumulate in fish and shellfish tissue and magnify in
concentration up the food chain so that humans and wildlife consuming these fish can receive a
health-threatening dose. Most of the human health risks from these chemicals come from
repeated exposure over time, rather than from single acute poisonings.
Subsistence and recreational fishers who eat large quantities of contaminated fish may be at
increased risk of reproductive cancer and neurological impairment. More than two-thirds of the
watersheds named in the report as "areas of probable concern" already have active fish
consumption advisories in place.
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
EPA Releases Risk-based Results
National Inventory of
Contaminated assess the nation's overall sediment quality, EPA assembled the largest set of sediment
Sediment chemistry and related biological data ever compiled into a database called the National
(continued) Sediment Inventory. EPA examined approximately two million records from more than 21,000
inland, coastal, and marine sampling stations located in 65 percent of the 2,111 watersheds in the
continental United States.
The data, which were collected between 1980 and 1993, provide a baseline for future studies and
for setting clean-up and pollution prevention priorities, EPA researchers noted.
After compiling the data, EPA assigned each sampling station to one of three levels:
Tier 1 adverse effects are probable (26 percent of the sampling stations fall into Tier 1)
Tier 2 adverse effects are possible but expected infrequently (49 percent)
Tier 3 no indication of adverse effects (25 percent)
This distribution, while highlighting a large number of contaminated locations, also reflects the
emphasis that monitoring programs place on areas known or suspected to be contaminated,
said EPA. Because contamination is most significant if it occurs widely within a discrete area,
EPA classified a watershed as an "area of probable concern" if it contained 10 or more Tier 1
sampling stations and if 75 percent or more of all the sampling stations in that watershed were
classified as either Tier 1 or Tier 2. On this basis, 96 of the assessed watersheds are sufficiently
contaminated to pose potential risks.
Point and Nonpoint Sources
Sources of contaminated sediments include incineration emissions, which travel by air to water
before being deposited in sediments; discharges of toxic and hazardous pollutants in
wastewater; and urban and agricultural runoff.
EPA has established four goals to guide future efforts to manage contaminated sediment: (1)
prevent the volume of contaminated sediment from increasing; (2) reduce the volume of existing
contaminated sediment; (3) ensure that sediment dredging and dredged material disposal are
managed in an environmentally sound manner; and (4) develop scientifically sound sediment
management methods.
Recommendations stemming from the study include
further evaluating the areas of probable concern,
incorporating a weight-of-evidence approach and measures of chemical bioavailability
in future sediment monitoring,
banning or restricting the use of toxic substances,
strengthening water quality standards and permits, and
cleaning up contaminated sites using Superfund and other enforcement authorities.
Cleaning up in-place contaminated sediments can be a complicated and expensive task, with
costs totaling in the millions if the contamination is extensive and removal and treatment are
required. Besides dredging, capping with clean sediment or natural recovery by deposition of
clean sediment over time are options, depending on the case. To help make sound, risk-based
decisions, EPA and others are developing and advocating the use of various sediment quality
assessment methods, including toxicity and bioaccumulation tests, biological community
indices, and numerical chemical concentration guidelines.
The report, prepared at the request of Congress under the Water Resources Development Act of
1992, was written in consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
the Army Corps of Engineers; and other federal, state, and local agencies. EPA expects to look
more closely at the 96 worst locations and to revisit the nation's sediment status in 2000.
[For more information, contact Jim Keating (4305), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Phone: (202) 260-3845: fax: (202) 260-9830; e-mail: keating.jim@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of EPA's fact
sheet (EPA 823-F-98-001) or the three-volume report: The Incidence and Severity of Sediment
Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States (EPA 823-R-97-006, 007, and 008) are available
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Publication and
4 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIUMAY1998, ISSUE #51
-------
EPA He/eases
National Inventory of
Contaminated
Sediment
(continued)
Information, 11029 Kenwood Road, Bui/ding 5, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242; fax: (513) 489-8695 or (800)
490-9198. The fact sheet and the list of 96 areas of probable concern are available on the Internet:
. For information on local contamination, see EPA's lnde\
of Watershed Indicators on the Internet: ).]
Task Force Examines Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico
Environmental activists, commercial fishers, and scientists warn that a 6,000-square-mile
hypoxic zone just off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas is disrupting the area's economy as well
as its aquatic ecosystem. A task force of high-level officials from the states, tribes, and federal
agencies is beginning to address the widening area of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, which met for the first
time last December, is combining expertise, authorities, and programs to better characterize
hypoxia, and to coordinate implementation of existing programs that will provide solutions.
Sediment core samples reveal that nitrogen loads to the Gulf, which are thought to be the root of
the problem, have tripled since the 1950s. Data now show that the hypoxic zone grew
substantially after the pulse of runoff from the 1993 Mississippi floods. Even in years of normal
rainfall, huge loads of fertilizers, animal manure, decaying plants, municipal and domestic
wastes, and atmospheric deposition enter the river from its giant 31-state drainage basin. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that 90 percent of the Gulf's
nutrient load comes from nonpoint sources. The loss of natural wetlands and riparian
vegetation throughout the watershed exacerbates the problem.
Gulf of Mexico/Mississippi River
Watershed Task Force Members
Federal Agencies
Department of Agriculture
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of the Army
State Agencies
Illinois Agriculture and Land Stewardship
Department
Illinois Department of Agriculture
Louisiana Environmental Quality Department
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Tennessee Department of Agriculture
Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation
Commission
Tribal Organizations
Prairie Island Indian Community
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Ecosystem Disruption
The hypoxic zone results from physical, chemical, and
biological interactions that occur where the Mississippi
River's nutrient-rich freshwater hits the salt water of the
Gulf. The excessive nutrients feed algae blooms that
deplete oxygen in the Gulf's deeper waters as they
decompose. The sharp temperature gradient that occurs in
the spring and summer between upper and lower waters
prevents oxygen-poor deep water from mixing with the
oxygen-rich shallow water. Gulf oxygen levels, which
should be about 5 parts per million or higher, have
dropped below 2 parts per million in the hypoxic zone and
to zero in areas known as "dead zones."
Though the problem begins in deep waters, its effects echo
throughout the water column. Shellfish and other
bottom-dwellers suffocate. Fish move out of the zone in
search of food and oxygen. And the ramifications of such
profound ecosystem changes extend beyond the water's
edge.
The hypoxic zone centers squarely in the middle of one of
the most important fisheries in the United States, an area
that produces 40 percent of the country's commercial fish
and shellfish. In Louisiana, commercial fishing supports
90,000 jobs and has an economic impact of $1.5 billion. In
1991, the state's recreational fishers spent about $600
million.
To compensate for ecological changes wrought by hypoxia,
Gulf fishing boats are now moving farther out to sea to
reach the shrinking fishery, spending more for fuel,
supplies, and wages. Others drop their nets closer to shore,
causing localized overfishing of the near-shore areas.
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Task Force Examines
Hypoxia in the Gulf
of Mexico
(continued)
Scientific Review
Under the auspices of the White House Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources, a
team of scientists is preparing to report to the Task Force on the results of six scientific
assessments:
Characterization of hypoxia: its distribution, dynamics, and causes
Ecological and economic consequences of hypoxia
Sources and loads of nutrients to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico
Effects of reducing nutrient loads to surface waters within the basin and Gulf
Evaluation of methods to reduce nutrient loads to surface water, ground water, and the
Gulf
Evaluation of social and economic costs and benefits of methods identified to reduce
nutrient loads.
The assessments will be reviewed by independent experts and delivered to the Task Force later
this year.
The Public Speaks Out
About 70 members of the general public attended the
December meeting to listen, comment, and ask questions.
Several called for increasing the pace of finding viable
solutions to the problem and establishing goals and
deadlines similar to the Chesapeake Bay Program's
40-percent reduction goal for nutrients. The need for
broader participation was another prominent theme
emphasized by commenters. Darryl Malek-Wiley,
president of the Mississippi River Basin Alliances
suggested that the Task Force be expanded to "bring other
nongovernmental organizations to the table and have
everyone talking as equals."
The group met again on April 8 to discuss the status of the
new Clean Water Action Plan (see article on page 1) and
how it might influence responses to the hypoxia problem,
what kinds of goals or objectives to set, how to manage the
coordination and implementation of activities, and how
the Task Force will measure and track progress.
[For more information, contact Mary Belefski (4503F), U.S. EPA, Watershed Branch, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202)260-7018; fax: (202) 260-1977; e-mail:
.]
University Sets Up Hypoxia
Research Center
A new research center to study hypoxia in the Gulf of
Mexico has opened at Iowa State University. Illinois is one
of the largest contributors of nutrients to the Mississippi
River Basin. Researchers estimate that 10 to 15 percent of
the nitrates entering the river come from Illinois.
The new Agro-Oceanic Nutrient Flux Center, or "Turf &
Surf," will attempt to summarize and focus the immense
and diverse knowledge base, identify and fill important
research gaps, and build support for and implement
nutrient management methods in the agricultural, coastal,
business and political communities of the rural Mississippi
Basin and Gulf of Mexico. The center's web address is
.
Notes on Watershed Management
Unexpected Findings Tampa Bay Investigates Atmospheric Deposit/on
Seven years ago, scientists and watershed managers in the Tampa Bay area described the
contribution of pollutants from atmospheric deposition to the Bay as "unknown, but thought to
be of minor importance." Today's more precise methodology, however, indicates that the
atmosphere is the largest source of phosphorus input to the Bay, and the second largest source of
nitrogen. The unexpected finding has spurred research into the impacts of air quality on the Bay.
Preliminary results of the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study (TBADS) provide evidence
of more than one conduit for airborne nutrients entering the Bay. Approximately 29 percent of
the nitrogen and 31 percent of the phosphorus entering Tampa Bay are deposited directly on the
water surface. Compounding the problem are atmospheric contaminants washed into the Bay
by runoff. By the time the study is completed (in several years), researchers hope to know the
extent of water quality impacts from both routes and the identity of the sources of nitrogen and
toxic materials in atmospheric deposits to the Bay. Some of the issues that researchers expect to
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
Unexpected clarify include the relative contribution of various nitrogen forms, dry vs. wet deposition,
FindingsTampa atmospheric deposition delivery via stormwater, and the relative importance of local and
Bay Investigates regional sources of atmospheric nitrogen.
Atmospheric
Deposit/on Dry vs. Wet Deposition
(con inue J Preliminary data from intensive monitoring of both types of deposition indicate that dry
deposition is far more common than wet deposition. About 80 percent of airborne pollutants are
introduced to the Bay waters by settling and attaching to surfaces. Gaseous components of
sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and ammonia and salts of either cations or anions are elements of
dry deposition.
In wet deposition, rain, snow, ice or cloud droplets combine with pollutants and fall as
precipitation. Pollutants include various types of acids (for example, sulfuric and nitric acids)
and some cations.
Different methods are used to assess the loading from the two types of deposition. Wet
deposition requires only a straightforward measurement of the amount of nitrogen in the
precipitation. Accounting for dry deposition is much more complex, since dry deposition
processes are influenced by the type of surfaces available for attachment and other factors
including aerodynamics and dew fall. After the ambient nitrogen concentration is measured, the
portion likely to be deposited is estimated, and a model based on meteorological data is applied.
Remote vs. Local Sources
When the bulk deposition rates of nitrogen, phosphorus, and some toxics (mainly metals and
pesticides) were measured at seven stations in the Tampa Bay watershed, the results showed
that nitrogen is relatively evenly distributed throughout the watershed, which suggests sources
outside the watershed. Atmospheric deposition of pesticides, on the other hand, appears to
come from local agricultural sources, such as crop dusting or plowing.
To better understand the mechanics of local vs. remote sources of airborne pollutants, TBADS
and EPA's Office of Research and Development are developing a model of air mass movement
featuring 15 different weather scenarios. Over the next year, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection plans to use the model to track emissions in the Tampa Bay area, to
predict, for example, whether emissions from watershed power plants lead to deposition in the
Bay. The model, similar to one developed for the Chesapeake Bay area, will also reveal whether
air masses are delivering pollutants from outside the watershed.
Another TBADS goal is to determine how much atmospherically deposited nitrogen is
immediately available for biological uptake. Living organisms can use nitrogen only if it is
packaged in a biologically recognizable form such as ammonia (NHs) and particulate
ammonium (NH4+). TBADS scientists are monitoring six locations to determine exactly how
much nitrogen is actually available to support algae growth in the bay.
Stormwater Also a Source
In addition to pollutants from the "airshed" deposited directly onto the Bay's surface, the
watershed makes its own contribution of pollutants deposited on land and carried in runoff to
the Bay's tributaries. To determine the contribution of atmospheric deposition to stormwater
quality, nitrogen and phosphorus data are being gathered in three residential areas in the
watershed. These studies should be completed this spring. According to Holly Greening of the
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, researchers hope to expand monitoring to other land use
areas (urban and agriculture) and perhaps include metals and other toxic parameters.
TBADS researchers are also seeking to determine the role atmospheric deposition plays in the
formation of several "hot spots" of sediment contamination in the Bay that is, whether these
contaminants are from direct atmospheric deposits or from stormwater runoff.
Controlling nitrogen input to Tampa Bay is essential if the Tampa Bay National Estuary Project
hopes to meet its goal of restoring sea grasses to levels that existed in the 1950s. Studies show
that of the 15,000 acres that have been lost since that time, about 12,000 acres can be recovered it
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Partners in the Tampa Bay
Atmospheric Deposition Study
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
Florida Department of Transportation
Southwest Florida Water
Management District
Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Manatee
counties
current nitrogen levels are reduced 7 percent by 2010. Controlling
atmospheric deposition will play a large role in achieving that goal,
since nutrient-fueled algae blooms block sunlight to the grasses.
TBADS is showing that, in Tampa Bay at least, thinking on a
"watershed" level is no longer enough; the airshed (often a much
larger area) can significantly impact watersheds that are thousands of
miles from the pollutant source. Both point sources and nonpoint
sources contribute to the atmospheric pollution brew, making control
a challenging job for all airshed and watershed partners.
[For more information, contact Holly S.Greening, Tampa Bay National Estuary
Project (I/NEP), 100 Eighth Avenue, SE, St. Petersburg. FL 33701. Phone:
(813) 893-2765; e-mail: ,]
Scientist Links Nutrient Runoff with Forest Defoliation
Adapted from U.S. Water News, January 1998, Vol. 15, No. 1. Co-published by U.S. Water News, Inc. and the
Freshwater Foundation.
As recent initiatives to preserve and create forested buffers along the Chesapeake Bay get
underway, data supporting the water quality benefits of forests continue to mount. Hydrologist
Keith Eshleman of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science has received a
$698,000 federal grant to investigate his discovery that nitrogen runoff from forest land in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed soared to as much as 50 times normal after heavy defoliation by
gypsy moth caterpillars.
The project is aimed at quantifying the overall effect of various kinds of forest disturbances
(including defoliation by insects) on the nitrogen load to receiving rivers, streams, and
ultimately the Chesapeake Bay. Using existing data, Eshleman plans to estimate how much of
the 230 million pounds of nitrogen believed to enter the bay annually comes from forest land
and how much that figure changes when forests are disturbed.
The data come from previous studies of defoliation and dissolved nutrients in streams within
the bay watershed, where forests make up 60 percent of the land cover. In addition, a GIS-linked
model of the effects of defoliation on nitrogen runoff will be developed, tested, calibrated, and
applied to the regional data sets. "No one has taken the time to pull all these data together to be
able to apply it to the question of how the regional forest is affecting the Chesapeake Bay," said
Eshleman, who works at the Center's Appalachian Laboratory in Frostburg, Maryland.
Forests normally accumulate nitrogen in plants and soil layers, so the amount reaching the bay
from forest land usually amounts to only a few pounds per acre, he said. But during a peak of
defoliation in 1990, researchers found that dissolved nitrogen levels in some forest streams were
similar to those in agricultural areas, which are often high in nutrients from fertilizer.
Eshleman thinks the heavy nitrogen discharge from defoliated forests in western Maryland is
also linked to caterpillar droppings, which, like all animal waste, are high in nutrients. Gypsy
moth caterpillars chomped through millions of acres of hardwood forests in the bay watershed
during the late 1980s and early 1990s. At the peak of the infestation, close to 12 percent of the
watershed's forests were stripped bare, Eshleman said. Gypsy moths have largely disappeared
from the watershed in recent years, but scientists think they will return. Other forest
disturbances, such as clear-cutting and overbrowsing by deer may also increase nitrogen runoff.
"I don't want to diminish the importance of ... pollution from agricultural land it is clearly
an important contributor to nitrogen loading of the Chesapeake Bay," Eshleman said. "But
people shouldn't get the impression that if you live on the farm, you're the sole source of the
problem."
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Vice President Michael Hirshfield said Eshleman's work shows the
value of healthy forests to the watershed ecology. "It confirms our understanding that just about
the most valuable thing you can have covering the landscape from a pollution perspective is
forests," he said.
8
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
Scientist Links
Nutrient Runoff with
Forest Defoliation
(continued)
[For more information, contact Keith Eshleman, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science,
Appalachian Laboratory, Gunter Hall, Frostburg, MD 21532. Fax: (301) 689-8518: e-mail:
<34Sleman@al.umces.edu>.]
News from the States
States Investing in Water Quality Getting Habitat Dividends in Return
Nonpoint source control and habitat enhancement are a natural match for states seeking to
combine objectives and funding sources in their environmental projects. Three current projects
illustrate the potential for this type of pairing a planning technique that more and more states
are adopting to leverage additional benefits from scarce resources.
Ohio's Brush Creek Project SRF
Funding Buys Conservation Easement The
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency recently
awarded The Nature Conservancy a $110,000 loan to
buy easements on 154 acres along Ohio Brush Creek
in southern Ohio. The money came from the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) and marks the first time an
SRF loan has been used in the purchase of a
conservation easement. It is also the first time The
Nature Conservancy has obtained SRF financing for
stream restoration and protection.
SRF Funding Framework Workshops:
Integrating the SRF into the States' Water
Quality Programs
EPA regional offices are hosting workshops to improve the use of
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The SRF has over $24
billion in assets available for loans to fund a wide variety of water
quality projects, including agricultural BMPs, urban stormwater
controls, wetlands and riparian zone restoration and protection,
estuary projects, and ground water protection. For more
information, see .
The interactive workshops will bring state water quality
representatives from nonpoint source, wetlands, estuary,
watersheds, groundwater, and SRF programs together to share
ideas and learn about each other's programs.
If you are interested in participating, please contact your regional
SRF representative:
Region 1
(CT, ME, MA, NH, Rl, VT)
June 1998
Ralph Caruso
(617)565-3617
Region 4
(AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC,
SC,TN)
August 1998
Sheryl Parsons
(404) 562-9337
Region 5
Wl, IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH,
Various locations/times
Gene Wojcik
(312)886-0174
Region 6
(AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
Late June 1998
Velma Smith
(214)665-7153
Region 7
(IA, KS, MO, NE)
September 1998
Donna Moore
(913)551-7741
Region 8
(CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)
September 1998*
Brian Friel
(303)312-6277
Region 9
(AZ, CA, HI,NV,AS,GU)
September 1998*
Juanita Licata
(415) 744-1948
Region 10
(AK, ID, OR, WA)
Call for dates
Dan Steinborn
(206) 553-2728
'may be combined
Ohio Brush Creek is known for four endangered
aquatic species, including the club shell mussel. The
easement property will protect 1.5 miles of the
creek's main trunk and provide a buffer to the Edge
of Appalachia Preserve, a system managed by The
Nature Conservancy. The easement will allow the
property owners to place permanent restrictions on
land uses.
"Conservation easements are an effective way to
protect the quality of streams and their adjacent
areas," said Ohio EPA Director Donald R.
Schregardus. "Restoring and preserving these
riparian areas is an important part of controlling
contaminated runoff that threatens water quality and
stream habitat. The SRF loan is an assistance tool for
protecting and preserving Ohio's water resources.
We hope other state and local organizations will
consider using the loan program in their areas to
help protect our waterways."
Through EPA, the SRF program provides seed
money to states to distribute as "reusable" loans to
various groups for water quality projects. Groups
applying to states for SRF funds must prove their
ability to return the money. In the last nine years,
over $17 billion has been loaned. About 97 percent of
the funding supported wastewater treatment
projects. The other 3 percent went to nonpoint source
and estuary projects.
The Nature Conservancy loan, from the state's Water Pollution Control Loan Fund, will be
repaid over a five-year period at an interest rate of 3.2 percent. The Water Pollution Control
Loan Fund is jointly administered by Ohio EPA and the Ohio Water Development Authority.
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
9
-------
States Investing in
Water Quality
(continued)
[For more information about the U.S. EPA's SRFprogram, contact Nikos Singel/s (4204), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC. 20460; e-mail:
. For information about the Ohio Brush Creek project, contact Jerry
Ftouch, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 1049, 1800 Watermark Drive, Columbus, OH
43216-1049. Phone: (614) 644-2798. Or contact Jeff Knoop, The Nature Conservancy, 6375 Riverside
Drive, Suite 50, Dublin, OH 43017. Phone: (614) 717-2770.]
Wisconsin Buffers Serve Dual Purposes Otter Creek in Sheboygan County,
Wisconsin, provides an excellent example of the multiple benefits of streambank buffer strips
and the role of local citizens in improving water quality. Using $20,000 donated by the Southeast
Wisconsin Chapter of Pheasants Forever, the county department of conservation is planting
riparian buffers that double as pheasant habitat between agricultural lands and the creek.
The Sheboygan County Land Conservation Department inventoried riparian habitat along the
creek in 1996 as part of the Sheboygan River Priority Watershed Project. Although landowners
had taken action to help control farm runoff and upland erosion, the inventory showed that
streambank vegetation would complement those upland conservation measures by providing
additional water quality protection and creating and enhancing wildlife habitat, especially
needed pheasant habitat.
Estimating that the land would produce crops worth $100 per acre if
farmed, the Conservation Department agreed to compensate farmers
for that amount annually for the next 10 years. Nearly 20 acres were
planted as buffers ranging in width from 16 to 95 feet. Based on Iowa
State University sediment removal studies, Conservation Department
officials estimate that the new buffer strips could reduce sediment
delivery to Otter Creek by as much as 40 percent.
Partners
Suison Marsh North American Wetlands
Conservation Act Project
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board
State Lands Commission
California Department of Fish and Game
U.S. FWS Endangered Species Branch
U.S. FWS Wetlands and Contaminants
Branch
National Marine Fisheries Service
Ducks Unlimited
Suisun Conservation Resource District
California Department of Fish and Game
U.S. Department of the Interior
North American Wetlands Conservation
Council
private landowners
Otter Creek is also one of 22 sites included in a national EPA-funded
monitoring program that collects data on water quality, stream habitat,
aquatic insect and fish populations, and land use to determine the
effectiveness of BMPs in the watershed. Working side-by-side, the two
projects should produce a well-managed stream corridor that supports
an abundance of wildlife.
[For more information, contact Jason Knuth, Sheboygan County Land
Conservation Department, 650 Forest Avenue, Sheboygan, Wl 53085-2513.
Phone: (920) 467-5746.]
Marsh Restoration Project Progressing in California In
California, the 57,310-acre Suisun Marsh, unique for its size and
diverse wildlife amid increasingly urban surroundings, is undergoing
restoration that will improve endangered species habitat and enhance
NFS pollutant filtering as a secondary benefit. One of the largest
brackish water marshes in the country, Suisun represents about 12
percent of all remaining natural marshland in California. The project is
funded by a North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)
grant and is the largest NAWCA project ever attempted.
The restoration, which involves nearly half the marsh's acreage,
includes the restoration and enhancement of wetlands and the
installation of five fish screens. Because the tidal marsh was diked in
the late 1800s for agricultural purposes, restoration also involves
improved water delivery systems, drainage facilities, and water control
structures. To pay for it, project partners matched a $1 million NAWCA
grant for a total of $2.86 million. Work began in August 1997 and will
be completed by late summer 1998.
The marsh is home to a number of endangered species the saltmarsh harvest mouse,
California clapper rail, winter run Chinook salmon, delta smelt, Sacramento split tail minnow,
and several plant species. Many more common migratory and resident waterfowl, fish, and
other wildlife species also populate the wetland.
10
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIUMAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
States Investing in The area's human residents also benefit since Suisun Marsh's San Francisco Bay location is
Water Quality within a two hour drive from densely developed suburbs and cities. Over 15,000 acres owned
(continued) by the state fish and game department are open to the public, and many privately owned
portions of the marsh support activities like hunting and fishing.
[For more information, contact Mike Bias, Regional Biologist, Ducks Unlimited, 3074 Gold Canal Drive,
Ranchero Cordova, California 95670-6116. Phone: (916) 852-2000; fax (916) 852-2200. Or contact Steve
Chappell, Biologist, Suisun Resource Conservation District, 2544 Grizzly Island Road, Suisun, CA 94585.
Phone: (707) 425-9302.]
States Up the Ante to Protect Riparian Areas
By Barry Tonning, Environmental Policy Analyst, Council of State Governments
While most states are still banking on voluntary measures to reverse streambank degradation
and NFS-impacted water quality, others are starting to take more aggressive action.
Massachusetts Massachusetts recently finalized regulations for implementing its new
Rivers Protection Act, which establishes a 200-foot-wide buffer zone along the state's perennial
rivers and streams. Developers who wish to build in the zone must demonstrate that there is no
reasonable alternative to construction in the protected area. They must also outline how their
proposed project will minimize impacts related to flooding, water supply, ground water,
shellfish, aquatic habitat, storm drainage, and fishing.
Convened by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, an eight-member
advisory board drafted the River Protection Act regulations. Board members included
environmental advocates, farming interests, property owners, developers, and real estate
interests. State officials hope that the new law will address most of the state's water resources
(nearly 67 percent) that are currently listed as impaired, and will promote a more proactive
approach to protecting water quality.
North Carolina North Carolina adopted a riparian protection measure last June, when
Governor Jim Hunt, members of the Environmental Management Commission, North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Secretary Jonathan Howes, and
state legislators teamed up on a plan to reduce nitrogen pollution and riparian destruction along
the Neuse River. The plan, announced after exhaustive research and consensus-building,
established a 50-foot protected, vegetated zone on each side of the river. Tough new rules for
stormwater management in urban areas, fertilizer applications, and sewage treatment plant
discharges were also enacted to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus polluting the
river.
New Hampshire Not to be outdone by its neighbors to the south, New Hampshire
implemented a comprehensive shoreland protection act last year to manage activities within 250
feet of lakes, ponds, rivers, and coastal waters. The new shoreland rules are targeted at
maintaining effective buffers of trees, shrubs, and ground cover to filter and absorb pollutants
and runoff. A minimum 20-foot setback is required for construction of sheds, garages, or other
structures, with a mandatory maximum "footprint" set at 150 square feet. Coordinated review
of riparian activities will eliminate unplanned and piecemeal development in the state,
according to Department of Environmental Services Commissioner Robert W. Varney.
Illinois Finally, Illinois sweetened the pot for voluntary protection of riparian areas by
adopting a five-sixths property tax exemption for vegetated buffers managed in accordance
with a plan approved by the county conservation district. The protected zone must be at least 66
feet wide, meet NRCS standards, and contain vegetation that "has a dense top growth, forms a
uniform ground cover, has a heavy fibrous root system, and tolerates pesticides used in the farm
field."
[For more information, contact Barry Tonning, Environmental Policy Analyst, Council of State
Governments, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY40578-1910. Phone: (606)244-8228: fax: (606)244-8239;
e-mail: .]
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 11
-------
Agricultural Notes
Conservation Tillage Acres Outnumber Conventional Agriculture Acres
For the first time, conservation tillage systems were used on more U.S. crop acres than intensive
tillage systems, according to a report on the National Crop Residue Management Survey. Iowa,
Illinois, South Dakota, Kansas, and Indiana together accounted for five million of the 6-million
acre increase in environmentally friendly farming techniques.
Conservation tillage systems now account for 109.8 million acres, or 37 percent, of the 294.6
million acres of crops planted annually planted in the United States. Traditional farming
methods, which cause more soil erosion and runoff, declined by four million acres to 107.6
million acres. (A system called reduced-till accounts for the other 77.3 million acres of cropland
planted in 1997.)
Conservation tillage is, by definition, any tillage or planting
system that leaves 30 percent or more of the soil surface
covered with crop residue (e.g., leaves, stems, stalks) after
planting. In addition to reducing soil erosion from water and
wind, crop residues help keep nutrients and pesticides from
washing off the field. The leftover plant matter acts like a
series of tiny dams to hinder runoff, allowing more
infiltration and less overland flow into streams and rivers.
"Independent research and practical application across the
country show that these systems not only replenish and build
organic matter in the soil for improved future food
productivity but they also protect water quality and enhance
wildlife and the environment for future generations," said
John Hebblethwaite, executive director of the Conservation
Technology Information Center.
Residue Management MAXes Out
Farmers across the Corn Belt, using a tool called
MAX (Farming for MAXimum Efficiency) to
compare the profitability of different types of
tillage systems, are finding that the yields and
profits produced through conservation tillage
practices compare very favorably to yields
gained through conventional tillage.
During the growing season, farmers record data
on fertilizer and pesticide applications, field
operations, and other expenses. Local
conservation agency personnel add erosion
control and soils information. All the data,
including harvest results, are entered into the
MAX computer program to generate summary
reports that offer growers economic insight on
inputs and management. The program also
ranks fields in the watershed or area by
yield-per-acre or cost-per-bushel, so growers
can compare their results with other local fields
and consider ways to fine tune their production
system for the future.
Farmers can download the free MAX software
from the Internet: ;
order it on a disk; or use hard copy worksheets.
[For more information, contact Dan Towery,
Conservation Technology Information Center
(CTIC), 1220 Potter Drive, Room 170, West
Lafayette, IN 47906-1383. Phone: (765)
494-9555; fax (765) 494-5969.]
Conservation Til/age and the Multiplier Effect
Farmers using conservation tillage make fewer trips through
fields, saving money, time, fuel, labor, and machinery (by
reducing wear). Improved long-term productivity, higher soil
moisture, decreased soil compaction, better wildlife habitat,
improved soil tilth, natural protection of ground water, and
even clean air are other benefits of conservation tillage.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and soil and
water conservation districts gathered the data for the
National Crop Residue Management Survey. CTIC then
compiled and published the report, which may be purchased
from CTIC. Highlights or an executive summary are available
free. To order, call CTIC at (765) 494-9555 (or see box for CTIC
address and fax number).
Urban Notes
Smart Growth An Imperative for the Future
By Michael Betteker, Principal Environmental Engineer, TetraTech
Achieving a balance among the issues of economic growth, community livability, and
environmental protection is an objective that the U.S. EPA has fostered for a number of years.
Now labeled "smart growth," this goal is increasingly embraced by land use planners and
progressive developers. Many are concluding that we cannot continue endless development
without regard to its impacts on the environment.
12
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIUMAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
Smart GrowthAn In this spirit, EPA and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) cohosted the Partners for Smart Growth
Imperative for Conference that took place December 2-4,1997, at the Renaissance Harborplace Hotel in
the Future Baltimore, Maryland. Attended by over 700 people, the conference was a major event in a
(continued) national reevaluation of land development practices focusing on meeting community and
regional needs with development and redevelopment that is environmentally sensitive,
economically sensible, and fiscally sound.
The conference marked a turning point in how federal, state, and local governments and
developers view development. The teaming of ULI and EPA is a significant milestone. EPA,
particularly the water office, has historically supported sustainable growth. ULI is a nonprofit
education and research institute for developers and homebuilders that is creating alternatives to
sprawling suburban growth.
Growth may be inevitable, yet, as the conference revealed, the impacts of uncontrolled, endless
growth are becoming impossible to ignore. Degraded water supplies, diminishing biodiversity,
air pollution, transportation bottlenecks, and crime are linked to overdevelopment.
At the conference, Maryland Governor Parris Glendening challenged others to follow his state's
smart growth initiative, which directs state aid toward existing cities and towns, thereby
reducing the expansion of roads, sewers, and schools into rural lands. The goal, Glendening
said, is not "no growth" or even "slow growth." It is, rather, "sensible growth that balances our
need for jobs and economic development with our desire to save our natural environment
before it is forever lost."
Baltimore Sets Example of Urban Renewal
Heard often during the conference was a call for renewing deserted and decaying urban centers.
Baltimore, the conference's host city, is a good example. The city center is undergoing a
renaissance with the construction of the Convention Center, National Aquarium, and, of course,
Camden Yards, home of the Orioles. The renewal has drawn people and businesses back to the
city, promoting an alternative to suburban growth.
Another urban renewal project of note presented at the conference was the Charlotte, North
Carolina, South End-Wilmore Brownfield Project, which cleaned up contaminated land and put
it back into beneficial use. In 1996, the city of Charlotte used a $200,000 EPA grant to identify
environmental problems and create opportunities for private sector and bank participation in
brownfield redevelopment. The project's accomplishments far exceeded its goals; it helped five
private renovation projects during its first year alone, winning an award for its outreach, and
playing a significant role in drafting North Carolina's Brownfield Property Reuse Act, signed by
the Governor in 1997.
Prince George's County, Maryland, presented its concept of "low impact development," an
alternative to conventional land use practices. The challenge of complying with the numerous
and complicated environmental regulations of different agencies led the county to promote
development that preserves natural resources and hydrologic functions, maintains water
quality, and minimizes site disturbance. For example, rather than conveying stormwater to
large, costly ponds, low impact development encourages small, cost-effective landscape features
on each lot.
Other examples of Smart Growth include developments that employ concepts like
eco-urbanism and clustering. Eco-urbanism is a blending of human habitat into the natural
ecosystem. It accommodates growth while minimizing land disturbance and maintaining the
natural beauty of the land. Eco-urban communities feature lakes, wetlands, tree conservation
areas, and stream valley parks.
A number of developers are experimenting with cluster designs that accommodate wildlife
habitat, forests, and agriculture. Cluster development can also produce significant benefits in
stormwater management (see News-Notes #43).
To facilitate the sharing of such ideas and build partnerships, EPA developed the Smart Growth
Network, a coalition of developers, lenders, building materials manufacturers, local
governments, and smart growth advocates. Coordinated by the EPA's Urban and Economic
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 13
-------
Smart GrowthAn Development Division, the network seeks to create neighborhoods, communities, and regions
Imperative for across the United States using smart growth concepts.
the Future _, r t tl , , , , . . , . ,
, t- ,, I he Smart Growth Conference signaled a new and promising era for individuals,
neighborhoods, businesses. Lessons learned will undoubtably lead to successful examples of
smart growth practiced locally, regionally, and nationally.
[For more information, contact Jessica Cogan (4504F), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. Phone: (202) 260-7154.]
EPA Proposes Extending the NPDES Storm Water Permit Program to Smaller
Municipalities and Construction Sites
By John A. Kosco, RE., EPA Office of Water
On January 9, 1998, the Federal Register published U.S. EPA's "Proposed Regulations for
Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges,"
commonly referred to as the NPDES Storm Water Phase II proposed rule. The proposal, which
fulfills a commitment made by the President's Clean Water Action Plan (see page 1), designates
two classes of facilities for automatic coverage on a nationwide basis under the NPDES program:
Small municipal separate storm sewer systems (pollutants include sediment, floatables,
oil and grease, as well as other pollutants from illicit discharges) located in urbanized
areas. This class covers about 3,500 municipalities.
Construction activities (pollutants include sediments and erosion from these sites) that
disturb one or more, but less than five, acres of land. About 110,000 sites per year will
be included in this program.
Both classes will need to apply for NPDES storm water permits in 2002. EPA anticipates that
most permittees would be covered under general permits.
EPA is also proposing to conditionally exclude certain facilities from the NPDES storm water
program, specifically Phase I facilities that do not expose materials such as industrial products,
processes, or raw materials, to storm water.
EPA developed the proposal with extensive stakeholder involvement, including input from
members of a subcommittee under the Urban Wet Weather Federal Advisory Committee; state,
tribal, municipal, industrial, and environmental representatives; and small entities under the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. EPA also convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel to evaluate and minimize the potential impact of the proposed rule on
small entities.
EPA will accept comments on this proposed rule until April 9,1998, and will issue a final
regulation by March 1,1999. Copies of the proposed rule can be obtained from the January 9,
1998 Federal Register, EPA's web site at ttp://www.epa.gov/OWM/sw2.htm. Limited hard
copies are available by calling the Water Resource Center, (202) 260-7786.
[For more information, e-mail: or phone (202) 260-5816.]
Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Golf Courses Good for
More Than Just "Birdies"
The image of golf courses as artificial landscapes devoid of wildlife save for the occasional
"birdie" is changing. Largely responsible for the evolving perception is the six-year-old
partnership between the United States Golf Association and Audubon International. Together
they administer a cooperative program that promotes ecologically sound land management and
the conservation of natural resources and also yields substantial water quality benefits.
Over 109 fairways in the United States and overseas are certified as Audubon Cooperative
Sanctuaries. Another 500 are working toward certification. The requirements are rigorous. It
takes between one and three years to earn certification. Participants must fulfill environmental
planning, wildlife and habitat management, public involvement, integrated pest management,
water conservation, and water quality management requirements. To enroll, golf course
14 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIUMAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
Audubon superintendents submit a written application that includes details on the size of the course,
Cooperative existing wildlife habitat, buildings on the property, water use statistics, waste disposal methods,
Sanctuary Golf and course management. The applicant also supplies a map and photos of the course. With the
Courses (continued) background materials in hand, Audubon International fashions a report suggesting BMP
strategies that fit the needs of each course.
The golf course then develops an environmental plan and an advisory committee. The
committee is composed of representatives of environmental groups, school board staff, small
business owners, and elected officials. It reviews and approves the proposed environmental
plan, which is sent to Audubon International for its approval.
Fox Hills
Fox Hills Golf and Conference Center in Plymouth, Michigan, completed this process in 1995. A
public course built in the 1920s, Fox Hills has undergone extensive physical changes. It now
boasts wildlife management areas, wetland buffers, 20 acres of prairie grass, and nesting boxes.
Management points proudly to a family of pheasants living on the course. The program has
helped to improve water quality in the area surrounding the Fox Hills course. According to Eric
Nemur, course superintendent, nitrate levels in a stream running through the course have
decreased as a result of buffer strips installed under the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary
Program.
Nemur considers the program registration fees ($100 a year) and BMP maintenance a
cost-effective tradeoff for the reduced cost of maintaining the course itself. The areas set aside as
buffers and wildlife habitat require less input than they did when the course was managed
traditionally with intensive mowing, seeding, pesticides, and fertilizer. In fact, because
implementing some of the water quality protection measures are already called for by state and
local mandates, the costs for maintaining the Audubon program requirements are small.
Robert Trent Jones Golf Club
The Robert Trent Jones Golf Club, a private course in Manassas, Virginia, hugs the banks of Lake
Manassas. The 850-acre lake is, in fact, a big reason the golf course chose to participate in the
Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. It provides drinking water for the city of Manassas
and other portions of Prince William County. The first Virginia course to be certified (in 1994), its
grounds keepers are, of necessity, knowledgeable about nonpoint source runoff and water
quality protection techniques. They choose grasses with low nitrogen requirements and apply
pesticides only on an as-needed basis. Assistant Superintendent Marian Ewing, along with other
staff, conducts water sampling and pest scouting trips routinely
Nitrate levels in the lake have actually decreased since the course was built on idled farmland.
Ewing believes that the decrease results from the strict water management practices used at the
course, which keeps 96 percent of the water it uses on site. And says, Harold Post, research
associate at the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory (part of Virginia Tech's Civil
Engineering School), "the golf course does a very good job of controlling what they put down in
the way of pesticides and fertilizer." The lab monitors the inlet and outlet at a wetpond on the
course after each storm event for nitrogen, phosphorus, pesticides, fertilizers, and metals. "The
golf course is probably a better land use for the reservoir than one more residential in nature,"
says Post.
According to Ewing, the only negative effect the course has suffered as a result of the program
has been a periodic overabundance of wildlife. "It is definitely a challenge to find the right
balance of geese, deer, and other wildlife so that they are present," says Ewing, "but not in such
high numbers that they are competing for food and habitat." So far, golfers there have been
privileged to observe 117 different bird species, foxes, bats, and other wildlife.
"Green" Courses Provide Greater Challenge to Golfers
Many courses incorporating less intensively managed areas have narrower, more difficult
fairways. Does the emphasis on the environment detract from the game? No, says Nemur, who
sees the special wildlife management areas and natural settings at Fox I lills as adding to the
sport's challenge. So far, the center has received only positive feedback from golfers who
frequent the course. However, Nemur feels the public has a long way to go before golfers start
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 15
-------
Maryland Golf Course Is a Preferred Land Use for Cleaner Ground Water
Located within a Chesapeake Bay Critical Area in
Queenstown, Maryland, the Queenstown Harbor Golf Links
groundwater monitoring program has data documenting
major nitrogen loading reductions. According to Steve Roy, a
water quality specialist who studied the site, the managed
turf reflects lower nitrogen concentrations than would be
expected if the site were in agriculture or residential
development.
Queenstown Harbor Golf Links requires extensive
environmental review and planning because of its proximity
to the Chesapeake Bay. Prior to its approval for construction
and operation, the course's management had to develop an
Integrated Pest Management Plan and a nutrient
management plan and install ground water monitoring wells.
Now, monitoring wells located on tees, greens, fairways, and
roughs yield data about ground water moving onto, beneath,
and off the site.
Prior to construction, when the land was in active corn,
soybean, and wheat production, nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations in the ground water ranged from 19
milligrams per liter (mg/L) beneath cropped areas to 0.02
mg/L in undisturbed background areas, averaging 5.34
mg/L in 1990. In 1997, seven years after the course was
built, the average nitrate-nitrogen concentrations for all wells
were 2.04 mg/L, an overall reduction of 62 percent. The
improvement was better than that predicted by a model Roy
developed in 1990, which indicated that nitrogen
concentrations in the ground water beneath the established
golf course would probably range between 3.95 and 5.1
mg/L).
When the course decided to expand in 1994, in an area
under active corn production, nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations prior to the construction of the new course
were as high as 18.3 mg/L. Recent sampling in the fall of
1997 in this well showed a concentration of 1.7 mg/L of
nitrate-nitrogen, representing a 91 percent decrease. The
decrease is especially noteworthy because the sample well
is located on a tee, the most intensively managed location
on a golf course.
Superintendent Bill Shirk is pleased with the environmental
success of the course's design, construction, and operation.
He believes that it demonstrates that a managed turf
environment can actually result in improved ground water
quality compared to other land uses.
[For more information, contact Bill Shirk, Superintendent, Queenstown Harbor Golf Links, 310 Links Lane, Queenstown, MD 21658. Phone:
(410) 827-7518. Or contact Steve Roy, Tetra Tech, 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA 22030. Phone: (703) 385-6000.]
picking their favorite courses on the basis of environmental practices. "The average golfer is still
looking for greens and fairways that look like the ones on TV," says Nemur. He hopes that more
Audubon courses will promote their involvement and raise awareness about the benefits of
environmentally sound golf course management. John Craig, an avid golfer who is also a water
resources specialist for an environmental consulting firm in Northern Virginia, has visited
several of the Audubon courses and is impressed with the program. "These courses are able to
provide many benefits to the public, including water quality protection, crucially needed
wildlife habitat, and the more obvious recreational benefits," he says.
[For more information, contact Mary Colleen Liburdi, Communications Director, Audubon International,
Inc., 46 Rarick Road, Selkirk, NY 12158. Phone: (518) 767-9051.]
Technical and Research Notes
From City Trash to Farm Treasure
The New York Times may contain "all the news that's fit to print," but when Jim Edwards of the
USDA Agricultural Research Service in Auburn, Alabama, mentions newspaper content, he's
talking about carbon levels and composting. For nearly seven years, Edwards has been
experimenting with different blends of newsprint, telephone books, yard waste, and poultry
manure to find the magic combination of carbon and nitrogen that will raise crop yields and
lower costs while cutting nonpoint source pollution.
The resulting compost or recycled product (which is formed into pellets three-eighths to four
inches in length) can be used, ultimately, to add nutrients and organic matter to the soil, hold
moisture, and guard against weeds. But Edwards, a soil scientist, envisions benefits far beyond
the edge of the field. He believes that the paper pellets that he has developed with Tascon, a
Houston recycling firm, can ease pressure on municipal landfills and help solve water quality
problems.
16
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
From City Trash to The pellets' ingredients are plentiful. Each American throws away about 1.6 pounds of paper a
Farm Treasure day, making up about 40 percent of the solid waste stream sent to ever-shrinking landfills. And,
(continued) each year (using 1996 figures), roughly 7.6 billion U.S. broiler chickens generate about 15.2
billion tons of nutrient-laden litter that poses a significant nonpoint source pollution risk.
Used in place of sawdust and rice hulls as livestock and poultry bedding, recycled paper pellets
immobilize the phosphorus and nitrogen in the manure by converting these nutrients into
nonwater-soluble forms. The pellets then enter a third "life-phase" as a fertilizer and soil
amendment. Although the insoluble nutrients they contain pose less risk to streams and lakes,
they are still available to plants.
A Promising Alternative
Considering the many tons of phosphorus and nitrogen that may wash off farms each year to
contaminate surface water, paper litter could be a viable answer, says Brad Lamb, EPA Region
6's Nonpoint Source Coordinator. He believes that the pellets "have the potential to be another
tool to help reduce polluted runoff from agricultural operations." EPA Region 6 has supported
proposed projects using the pellets in central and western Texas. However, Lamb feels that more
research on costs, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects is needed before the pellets gain
widespread acceptance.
The product is not without its downside. While most modern inks are biodegradable, some
older inks contain lead and other heavy metals such as chromium, copper, and zinc that can
leach into the environment. Edwards and his staff have been able to reduce risks by mixing
older printed material with other wastepaper and cardboard. There are also concerns about
aluminum in newsprint, which has been shown to induce nutrient disorders in plants.
Edwards, however, is enthusiastic about his work with the pellets. He is looking forward to
seeing demonstration projects get underway soon. Wind tunnel studies conducted at the USDA
Agricultural Research Station in Big Spring, Texas, showed that the pellets reduced wind
erosion by 95 percent. And the pellets are capable of absorbing four to five times their weight in
moisture, making them a good winter alternative for reducing runoff and maintaining soil
moisture, especially in dry regions where winter cover crops rob the soil of water.
The pellets may have other benefits as well. Some studies have suggested that paper pellets can
suppress plant pathogens, especially fungi, and that the high carbon content in the paper feeds
beneficial bacteria that help plants ward off disease. Used as a mulch, the pellets tight weeds by
matting together and forming a physical barrier on the soil surface. In experiments conducted
by the Department of Horticulture at Auburn University, paper pellets controlled weed growth
as well as or better than traditional chemical herbicides.
Additional research into the effects of land application of organic materials on soil nutrient
dynamics is needed before paper pellets can receive an unqualified thumbs up. But if obstacles
to using the paper pellets can be overcome, they may soon be making water quality headlines.
[For more information, contact Jim Edwards, Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Dynamics
Laboratory, Box 3439, Auburn, AL 36831-3439. Phone: (334) 844-3979; e-mail:
. Or contact Jim Adamoli, Tascon, Inc., P.O. Box 41846. Houston, TX
77241. Phone: (713) 937-0900: e-mail: .]
Nontoxic Paint Makes Boat Hull Maintenance Safer for Aquatic Life
Each year, the Navy, Coast Guard, commercial enterprises, and recreational boaters spend
millions of dollars combating the small creatures that find ship hulls an ideal place to attach
themselves. Traditional "antifouling" paints used to discourage the organisms pose a threat to
the health of aquatic ecosystems. But now several new, nontoxic treatments may reduce
pollution from boats and marinas, while at the same time reducing ship maintenance costs.
Though the individual "foulers" (algae, barnacles, and tube worms) are usually less than two
inches long, accumulations induce friction that can increase a ship's fuel consumption by as
much as 20 percent and keep it from attaining cruising speed. Traditional antifouling paints
have a tributyltin (TBT) or copper base. They are very effective but also highly toxic to other
aquatic life. The toxicity of such paints and concerns about their disposal and the exposure of
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 17
-------
Nontoxic Paint shipyard workers and recreational boaters to them has led to federal restrictions on their use.
Makes Boat Hull The International Maritime Organization is, in fact, considering a global phaseout of tributyltin.
Maintenance Safer
forAcquatic Life Si/icone Paints An Alternative with Less Risk, Lower Costs
(con inue ) Thg ^ g Nav^ wor].]
Education News
Standard Educational Principles Apply to Watershed Outreach
Adapted from Keeping Current5(5). June/July 1997.
Educators have long recognized the basic components of successful outreach, such as specific
educational objectives, target audiences, strategies for reaching different audiences, and needs
assessments. Yet water quality projects don't always employ these well-known principles,
according to a study by the University of Wisconsin Extension's Environmental Resource Center.
Educators Robin Shepard and Susan Smetzer Anderson, analyzed 14 plans for outreach projects
in Wisconsin's priority watershed program and discovered that only a fraction of the plans
addressed the four standard principles.
18 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
Standard Setting Education Objectives
Educational Only four of the 14 plans stressed behavior-oriented objectives such as increasing the percentage
Principles Apply to oi farmers usmg soji testing. "General objectives," Shepard and Anderson noted, "may be
Watershed Outreach appropriate where people are not aware of water quality problems [But].. . overly general
(continued) messages are not likely to capture the attention of people who may be dubious about a topic's
personal relevance."
Knowing the Audience
Targeting the audience correctly involves two steps: identifying the general populations in a
watershed, such as farmers and urban residents, is fundamental; but a second important step is
defining subgroups within the populations who impact water quality in different ways. Each
subgroup requires its own distinct message and communication channels. Shepard and
Anderson found that only three of the plans in their study took the crucial second step. More
precise identification, they said, would enable "educators to craft more targeted programs . . .
[making] more efficient use of limited financial resources."
Communication Strategies
A ruling communications principle is that multiple communication strategies and channels are
needed to inform the maximum number of people. Messages should not only be broadcast
widely, but the message should be tailored to the needs of specific audiences. But again, only
one of the Wisconsin plans explained why a specific strategy was chosen.
Needs and Evaluations
Needs assessments help define action-oriented objectives and identify target audiences.
Evaluations before, during, and after an educational effort help educators assess the value of
communication strategies and correct it if necessary. In 10 of the 14 Wisconsin plans, needs
assessments were discussed. Four plans described how the results would be used in program
planning and used an assessment to identify target audiences. Three projects intended to use the
assessments to gauge how audience perceptions and behaviors changed over time. Shepard and
Anderson advise educators to consider using more surveys and discussion forums to quantify
the specific needs of people living in the project watershed.
While watershed educators must certainly be familiar with water quality issues, knowing the
standard principles for developing educational programs is also necessary to help them develop
successful outreach programs.
[For more information, contact Robin Shepard, University of Wisconsin Extension, Environmental
Resources Center, Room 216, Agriculture Hall, 1450 Linden Drive, Madison, Wl 53706. Phone: (608)
262-1916.]
Education and Outreach in Action Column
From Brownfields to Green Fields. Elkhart, Indiana, is proud of having turned a
former brownfield into an environmental showcase. Where once a Superfund site, antiquated
landfills, illegal dumps, and sludge farms threatened water quality; ground water monitoring
stations, an environmental education center, recycling depots, and a nature preserve are now
thriving. The city capped its old dump, then built the Elkhart Environmental Center on the site,
with four created wetlands, an amphitheater (built by local Boy Scouts), canoe launch, and
butterfly garden.
The new Center's education programs have reached more than 25,000 students. A curbside
recycling program has diverted more than 15 million pounds of trash from city landfills, and
Elkhart won an AmeriCorps National Service Program Award for its community service
program for building a nature preserve on the site of a former city sludge farm. In 1995,
Elkhart was the state's first Groundwater Guardian Community recognized for its public
education program. Elkhart's ground water supply, which had been contaminated with an
industrial chemical, was cleaned up using a barrier system that diverted polluted water away
from the city's supply pumps. Now, a wellhead protection program monitors water entering the
wellfield pumping stations.
[For more information, contact Eric Horvath, City of Elkhart, 1201 South Nappanee Street, Elkhart, IN
46516. Phone: (219) 293-2572.]
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 19
-------
Education and
Outreach in Action
Column
(continued)
Boy Scouts Monitor for Badges and the Environment Boy Scouts near Houston,
Texas, are monitoring the water quality of Grand Lake and earning their Scout badges in the
process. The area surrounding Grand Lake is developing rapidly as the city expands. Erosion
from construction has increased siltation in the lake, and stormwater is adding other pollutants.
Several scouts who are now certified Texas Watch Monitors are teaching others how to collect
samples. Scout leaders hope the program will establish a solid core of monitors and trainers to
carry the program into the future.
[For more information about the scouting program, contact Glenn Buckley, Chairman, Conservation
Committee, Sam Houston Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, 94 Windsail Place, The Woodlands,
Texas 77381. Phone: (281) 423-5585; fax: 281-423-7719. For information about Texas Watch, visit
or contact Greg Bryant, TNRCC, MC-150, PO Box 13087, Austin, Texas
78711-3087. Phone: (512)239-6941.]
From Awareness to Action in California Two programs under the umbrella of the
California 4-H Youth Development Program help students learn how everyday activities impact
their world. Science Experiences and Resources for Informal Education Settings (SERIES), for
children 8-12, and Youth Experiences in Sciences (YES), for children ages 5-8, are led by teenage
volunteers under the guidance of volunteer adult coaches. The children (with the help of their
teen leaders) undertake community service projects related to the curriculum unit currently
being presented (e.g., recycling, water pollution, pest management). The curricula were
developed by the California 4-H Youth Development Program, the Graduate School of
Education at the University of California-Berkeley and the Lawrence Hall of Science. They
promote critical thinking, evidence gathering, decisionmaking skills, and application to real-life
situations.
[For more information, contact SERIESA'ES Projects, Human and Community Development, University of
California, Davis, CA 95616-8523. Phone (916) 752-8824.]
46th Annual National Land and Range Judging Contest More than 900 teens and
adults from 32 states competed in 4-H, FFA, and adult divisions for land judging, range judging,
and homesite evaluation in the National Land and Range Judging Contest, held in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. The event is sponsored by the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts
with assistance from Oklahoma State University, the Farm Bureau, and other organizations.
Contestants rate the soil and land characteristics for a variety of uses. This valuable skill can
lead to careers in farming, natural resource conservation, home building, landscaping, and
construction.
[A 15-minute video showing the highlights from this year's national contest is available for $20 from Jim
Stiegler, Oklahoma State University, Agronomy, Ag Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078. Phone: (405) 744-6421.]
High School Restoration Class Offers Skills, Hope Students at Shorecrest High
School in Seattle, Washington, can satisfy vocational education requirements by taking a class
on environmental restoration. Environmental professionals from the Student Conservation
Association, The Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Forest Service offer visiting lectures.
Students read from a variety publications, including On-Site Restoration Methods for Mountainous
Regions of the West, authored by their teacher, Russell Hanbey. They grow native plants in the
school greenhouse for donation to the community and they conduct community
restoration projects. Recently, students helped restore abandoned mountain logging roads that
were compromising the health of local streams and fisheries.
The course follows a concept developed by the Society for Ecological Restoration's New
Academy Initiative that describes "restoration and education healing and learning as part
and parcel of the same process." Each student is required to complete a semester-long project,
participate in "hands-on" activities at school, and volunteer for three hours of after-school
restoration-related community projects.
[For more information, contact Russell Hanbey, Shorecrest High School, 15343 25th Avenue NE, Seattle,
WA 98115. Phone: (206) 361-4286; fax: (206) 361-4284.]
20
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
Reviews and Announcements
Waters, Rivers and Creeks
By Luna B. Leopold, Sausalito, CA: University Science Books, 1997. $30 hardcover.
Reviewed by Rachel Reeder, Terrene Institute
Waters, Rivers and Creeks is an expanded and reorganized version of a long out-of-print book,
called Water A Primer. Though it takes a systems approach, the book focuses on the physical
aspects of rivers and other waters, and it is a potentially significant book for policymakers,
despite its brevity and straightforward adherence to natural processes as the arbiter of reason.
Waters, Rivers and Creeks is enlightening and practical, not least because Luna Leopold a
geologist describes an arcane science in elementary terms, but because he writes for the
layperson, and that makes all the difference. Waters, Rivers and Creeks is a flow of recognitions, a
way to see and own the knowledge we already have about water. And in the process, the
former chief hydrologist of the U.S. Geological Survey, and professor emeritus of the
Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, gives us
something better than explanation.
A glass of iced tea, a dishpan half-filled with sand, sieves made of fine mesh, a candle wick,
newspaper reports about wells going dry, and reminders of what it's like to dig in a garden
observations so commonplace that they have been forgotten are the stuff that Leopold uses to
make the mystery of water and water's relationship to climate, soil, and plants so utterly clear.
Anyone who has found it difficult to connect the piezometric surface and cone of depression
(for example) to a discussion of water rights and quality; or to understand how little the
extraordinary discharges of flood events affect the appearance of the river channel (which, after
all, is not formed by major catastrophes but by modest and frequent small-storm flows) will like
this book.
It is not entirely easy; it bids us cast our eye over thousands of years and numerous complex
interactions of climate, soil, and water that shape the channel, the floodplain and terraces that
constitute the river system. But having done so, it makes the explanation of fluctuating supplies,
water budgets, and municipal water supply systems a piece of cake.
The length of the conclusion, barely four paragraphs, is, like the length of the book as a whole,
inversely related to its value. "Hydrological principles," Leopold asserts, "are not controversial.
The more that is known about hydrology, the easier it is to judge alternative proposals and to
compare their benefits and cost."
How refreshing it would be if those responsible for public information would begin their
programs based on this book! Leopold's reverence for rivers never obscures his goal or his
conviction that "sound decisions require an informed citizenry."
The Ecology of Hope
By Ted Bernard and Jora Young, East Haven, Connecticut: New Society Publishers, 1997. $16.95 plus $3
shipping and handling.
Reviewed by Rachel Reeder, Terrene Institute
Subtitled, "Communities Collaborate for Sustainability," this book is a collection of stories about
sustainable development and the revitalization of local communities. It shows how different
factions and interest groups in diverse settings emerge in critical times to develop consensual
and holistic ways to salvage threatened natural and cultural resources.
Resource managers wanting technical details about nonpoint source controls or planners
looking for measurable results may be frustrated by the book. On the other hand, its authors'
brief sojourns in eight U.S. communities from Monhegan Island, Maine, to the Mattole River
watershed at the westernmost tip of California, and from Menominee, Wisconsin, to the
borderlands of Arizona and New Mexico and points between are a rich vein of information.
The details, now that we know the source of the information, can be mined from shorter, more
technical case studies.
APRIUMAY1998, ISSUE #51 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 21
-------
The Ecology of Hope And what information is here will delight citizens, policymakers, community organizers, and
(continued) regulators. The Ecology of Hope offers ample, if anecdotal, proof that the quintessentially
American commitment to living both for and off the land is as strong as ever and still the basis
for enduring partnerships based on cooperation and the embrace of multiple objectives.
Locally led partnerships are part of a "third wave" in the American conservation movement.
This wave, the authors tell us, is more grounded, biocentric, and appreciative of the link
between people and nature than previous stages of the movement. Managers in this era are
people whose vision of how problems can be resolved includes "not ruining for others what we
ourselves enjoy." Bernard and Young's ethic of sustainability is characteristically simple: "the
effort to live in such a way that the needs of future generations can still be served."
The communities profiled share a reliance on consensus and a belief in a mix of voluntary and
enforcement measures as tools for resource management. Each has initiated a dialogue between
"homesteaders" (or "been heres" as the natives are called on Virginia's eastern shore), and new
residents (or "come heres") to preserve local resources and values amid changes that threaten
their communities.
The way to sustainability for these communities begins with the recovery or revitalizetion of
traditional practices (e.g., the logging directives that 19th-century Menominee chiefs gave to
their descendants.) It then refines these practices with new technologies (e.g., the Menominees'
commitment to scientific forestry and their realization that a healthy forest stand also requires
attention to "all the other attributes of the forest"). This conjunction of tradition and science
helps these communities correct past mistakes and frees them to find a better way. For example,
the Menominees have learned that some clear cutting may be necessary to reestablish early
successional forest types (e.g., aspen and white pine).
NFS Issues Demand Widespread Changes
The book also speaks eloquently of getting down to "the root issues" that make nonpoint source
pollution prevention so difficult. Whatever problem in the "commons" forges the original
coalition, extending the issue to nonpoint source pollution is "bound to reinstate turf issues or
demand the kind of widespread changes in human behavior that are difficult to accomplish."
Seth Zuckerman, a homesteader living in and working for the Mattole River watershed, puts it
this way: "As soon as you start talking about forests and sediment, it gets personal. It's coming
off everybody's land, everybody's roads, everybody's building sites. These are matters of
people's everyday lives and livelihoods. Consensus disappears."
The Mattole River watershed began its partnership experiment to help prevent the
disappearance of king salmon, and the "salmon group" then helped launch a council that now
works to restore and sustain "the healthy functioning of all the watershed's natural systems."
The salmon initiative was approved by nearly all residents in the watershed, but as Dan Weaver
concedes, "Once we got away from the salmon, we were on thin ice."
The Mattole experience illustrates the promise and the compromise involved in each of these
coalitions. The return of the salmon was slower and less successful than the community had
hoped, and the "salmon group" had to overcome opposition from within and without. The
California Department of Fish and Game originally opposed their work, not sure how to react to
having "nonlicensed civilians trapping, carrying, and incubating wild fish." Later opposition
from within the watershed led to some "fairly divisive" lawsuits. However, now the salmon
appear to be coping, and the councilors agree with one another: "With each meeting [of the
council] trust builds. We need to go on."
This struggle continues to be played out in different ways in each of the communities Bernard
and Young visited. It is acknowledged but not expunged, and definitely not used to temper the
book's original thesis. The chapter on the Mattole, for example, concludes on this optimistic note:
Our time in the Mattole convinces us that this is about a different kind of
resource management based neither on political constructs nor resource
warfare but on the way nature works. It centers around a unit of inordinate
natural significance, the watershed, and on mutual concern for the health not
only of this watershed but also of the human economy. This kind of resource
management is home-grown and mindful of the need to susta/nably use natural
22 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
The Ecology of Hope resources, rangelands and timber specifically. It welcomes partners, particularly folk
(continued) who for generations have made their living from the land and water, and it strives to
make decisions based on sound scientific information and local knowledge of place.
It respects the web of living things and perceives that human well-being depends on
the well-being of ecological processes.
While it is possible to approve this thesis, it is also possible to question whether it is completely
honest as stated. Does it not also seem, based solely on Bernard and Young's own report, that
these coalitions are successful at least in part because the partners have added a degree of
political savvy to their notion of "how nature works"?
For example, The Nature Conservancy and several local communities (most notably, on
Virginia's eastern coast and in the borderlands between Arizona and New Mexico) have each
expanded their vision and accomplished more than they set out to do by overcoming original
antipathies and mutual suspicion. The Nature Conservancy had to learn that preserving the
land by buying up large parcels is neither sufficient nor always an acceptable way to help local
communities; and the communities had to learn that the Conservancy had not come in solely to
usurp local authority.
In short, the willingness to yield a "right" here or there to gain a more lasting privilege in its
place, and the dawning acceptance that some degree of regulation is needed, may be a larger
part of Bernard and Young's new stories than they have perhaps realized.
The authors admit that they began their search for these stories because the old ones "no longer
work," and "a good story has the power to save us." Those of a less literary, not to say less
romantic, temperament may find such references less productive than reliance on conservation
tillage, zoning ordinances, easements, or other concrete measures to preserve resources. Few,
however, will deny that we need a collection of models to help us find positive,
consensus-based ways of using natural resources wisely, that is, without simultaneously
"profoundly interrupting [the] natural cycles of renewal."
Taken one by one, each chapter in the collection is readable and instructive, and each one shows
the human face of environmental planning. For that, we can be extremely grateful; there is little
enough of that in the literature.
Conservation Design for Storm water Management
A joint effort between the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control and the Environmental Management Center of the Brandywine Conservancy produced
this manual for prospective developers and municipal planning agencies. Although designed
for use in Delaware, Conservation Design for Stormwater Management has useful applications for
other states.
The conservation design approach makes maximum use of natural features to more closely
mimic the predevelopment hydrology of a site. Nonstructural BMPs are used whenever
possible, reducing or eliminating more expensive structural management controls. Swales
between lots and along roadways aid infiltration and carry overflow to natural wetlands or
discharge points. In one design, divided roads offer infiltration areas between the lanes. Open
space can then be maximized for Stormwater management use.
Starting with a basic explanation of the water budget, this 225-plus page publication describes
nonstructural conservation techniques resources and the limitations and resources of various
sites, ending with a chapter that contains four conservation design case studies of different sites.
Even though the size of lots are reduced under some of the scenarios, plans call for the same si/e
houses. In other situations, lot sizes remain the same, but houses are constructed to leave more
natural area on each lot. Retained natural areas enhance esthetics and provide recreation
opportunities. They also reduce the need for more expensive structural Stormwater
management controls.
[For more information or to order a copy of the manual ($25 plus shipping and hand/ing), contact Frank
Piorko, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, Bo\
1401, Dover, DE 19903. Phone: (302) 739-4411.]
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 23
-------
Other Resources
Internet. Enforceable State Laws and Regulations to Control NFS. The Environmental Law
Institute recently posted a comprehensive study that examines state laws to identify and
analyze enforceable mechanisms for the control of NPS. To access this report, go to
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/elistudy.
Catalog. 1997 International Erosion Control Association Resource Catalog. This catalog contains
publications on everything from erosion control plans to conference proceedings. For a free
copy, contact IECA at (800) 455-4322; fax: (970) 879-8563; e-mail: 502O ieca.org; web:
< www.ieca.org>.
Manuals. You and Your Land, A Homeowner's Guide for the Potomac River Watershed. Provides
practical information that homeowners can easily understand to help them help keep nutrients
from reaching the Potomac River. To receive a copy contact the Northern Virginia Soil and Water
Conservation District at (703) 324-1423. The cost of the guide is $5, which includes postage.
A Citizen's Handbook to Address Contaminated Coal Mine Drainage. Intended to familiarize citizens
with coal mine drainage from abandoned mines and to provide the tools needed to help clean
up the waters of Appalachia. It provides an overview of the step-by-step process of
contaminated coal mine drainage clean up and the role that citizens and grassroots can play in
that process. To receive a copy contact the Public Environmental Education Center of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 at (215) 566-5121.
Aquatic Plant Management in Lakes and Reservoirs. Part of a continuing series of technical
supplements for the Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual (Olem and Flock, 1990). The
first two technical supplements were Monitoring Lake and Reservoir Restoration and Fish and
Fisheries Management in Lakes and Reservoirs. Copies are $20, or $15 for members of the North
American Lake Management Society. Contact North American Lake Management Society, P.O.
Box 5443, Madison, WI 53705-5443 or Aquatic Plant Management Society, P.O. Box 1477, Lehigh,
FL 33970; web: http://aquatl.ifas.ufl.edu/database.html.
Video. Adirondack Waters: Can We Keep Them Clean? Targets residents and municipal officials
with an introduction to watershed planning and water quality protection. Produced by the
Resident's Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, the 30-minute video features the Adirondack
Mountains of New York. The video costs $6.00 (including postage) and can be obtained by
contacting the Resident's Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, P.O. Box 27, North Creek, NY
12853-0027.
Report. National Onsite Wastewater Treatment: A National Small Flows Clearinghouse Summary
ofOnsite Systems in the United States, 1993. A 414-page document describing commonly cited
problems with onsite systems, local agencies working with onsite systems, permit and system
costs, and onsite system maintenance responsibility from more than 1,500 local health
departments and agencies in 46 states. The report costs $17.50, plus shipping and handling.
Request item #WWBKGN89. Order from NSF, phone: (800) 624-8301; fax: (304) 293-3161; e-mail:
.
NFS Electronic Information Exchange
The NPS Information Exchange has evolved from a modem-based electronic bulletin board to a
system of Internet resources. Documents, including News-Notes issues 1-49, are now located
on the NPS Information Exchange World Wide Web site:
NPSINFO is the Information Exchange's e-mail discussion group.
To subscribe to this group, send an e-mail message to listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov.
Include the following text 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.
24 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
Reflections
Haiku by the Slough
mmm
Web
A web of dead plants
The spider weaving on through
The tangle of life
By Leslie Modrich
Kickapoo, Wisconsin, high school teacher Frank Accomando requires students in his
environmental sciences course to write haiku poetry. The haiku poem, a Japanese
poetry form, embodies lyrical, sublime, concise expression. Nature is often a subject
of haiku poetry.
Harnessing poetry's power to heighten awareness was Accomando's aim when, in
February 1997, he asked his students to don boots and snowshoes and follow him
across the highway to the frozen Kickapoo River. There they composed poetry that
was published as a small book, Haiku by the Slough. "Web" was one of the poems
included in the book.
"The goal of the class," said Accomando, "was to learn about the Kickapoo River and its
tributaries, and how to monitor their health. But before we did this, I felt we had to figure out
why we were doing this in the first place. So, we looked at the writings of Thoreau, Whitman,
Emerson, and others and discussed how their beliefs applied to our situation."
Then the students got down to business. After conducting an exhaustive comparative analysis of
several different protocols for monitoring the chemical, biological, and physical aspects of a river,
the students split into three groups to study the Kickapoo and its two tributaries. While this work
was going on, guest speakers visited the class to share their knowledge about the valley's
land-use history, the relationship between current land uses and water quality, the valley's
hydrogeologic system and other topics. The class wound up with a canoe trip down the river.
If the next generation of scientists are also poets, and tomorrow's poets are well versed in science,
surely there is hope that these stewards will manage our waters with both wisdom and knowledge.
[For more information, contact Tina Hirsch, Coordinator, Kickapoo Valley Community Stewardship Project,
(608) 637-8095.]
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. This listing is available online
atwww.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/events.html. 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).
Meetings and Events
1998
May
June
17-22 Flood Mitigation Technology: Times Are Changing, Milwaukee, WI. Sponsored by the Association of
State Floodplain Managers. Contact Leslie A. Bond, Program Chair, 1998 ASFPM Conference, P.O.
Box 427, High Rolls, NM 88325. Phone: (505) 682-1359; fax: (505) 682-1369; e-mail .
26-30 Specialty Conference on Rangeland Management and Water Resources, Reno, NV. Contact AWRA, 950
Herndon parkway, Suite 300, Herndon, VA 20170-5531. Phone: (703) 904-1225; fax: (703) 904-1228.
1-3 First International Conference on Ceospatial Information in Agriculture and Forestry, Lake Buena Vista, FL.
Contact ERIM, P.O. Box 134001, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-4001. Phone: (313) 994-1200, ext. 3234; fax: (313)
994-5123; e-mail: .
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
25
-------
5-9
7-9
7-12
22-24
26-28
July
11-19
August
24-28
September
21-24
October
20-29
21-23
Balancing Resource Issues: Land, Water, People, San Diego, CA. Annual conference of the Soil and Water
Conservation Society. Contact: Soil and Water Conservation Society, 7515 Northeast Ankeny Road,
Ankeny, IA 50021-9764. Phone: (515) 289-2331; fax: (515) 289 1227; web site:
or e-mail: .
Monitoring: Critical Foundations to Protect Our Waters, Reno, NV. Contact Joanne Kirklin. Phone: (405)
810-4440; fax: (405) 842-7712; e-mail: .
The Land-Water Interface: Science for a Sustainable Biosphere, Waco, TX. Contact the American Society of
Limnology and Oceanography, 5400 Bosque Boulevard, Suite 680, Waco, TX 76710-4446. Phone: (800)
929-ASLO; e-mail: .
Carolina Bay Ecosystems: The State of Our Understanding, Pembroke, NC. Contact Morgan A. McClure,
Carolina Ecological Services, 2411 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC 29414. Phone: (803) 556-9795;
fax: (803) 571-0275; e-mail: .
Our Ncit> England Waters: Watershed Stewardship for the Next Millennium, the Fifth Annual New England
Lakes and New England Regional Volunteer Monitoring Conference, University of New Hampshire,
Durham, NH. To submit summary submissions or for more information, contact Jeff Schloss,
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, 108 Pettee Hall, 55 College Road, Durham, NH
03824-3599. Phone: (603) 862-3848; fax: (603) 862-0107; e-mail: .
National Clean Boating Week. A nationwide celebration of boating on clean water, including
educational programs, demonstrations, and activities to promote protecting boating waters. Contact
the Marine Environmental Education Foundation at (401) 782-2116; e-mail: .
Meeting on Water Quality Standards, Water Quality Criteria, and Implementation, including Water
Quality-Based Permitting, Philadelphia, PA. Contact The Cadmus Group at (703) 998-6862; e-mail:
mrm98@cadmusgroup.com; website: .
Sixth National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop, Cedar Rapids, IA. Contact Lynett Seigley or
Carol Thompson, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau, 109 Trowbridge
Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242-1319. Phone: (319)335-1575; fax: (319) 335-2754; e-mail:
or .
River Restoration and Natural Channel Design, Pagosa Springs, CO. One of eight short courses presented
by Dave Rosgen with Wildland Hydrology. Contact Wildland Hydrology, 157649 US Highway 160,
Pagosa Springs, CO 81147; phone: (970) 264-7120; fax: (970) 264-7121; e-mail:
.)
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), Buffalo, NY. Contact Paul Bertram, U.S. EPA, (312)
353-0153 or Nancy Stadler-Salt, Environment Canada, (905) 336-6271. More information can be found
on the web: or .
Calls for papers Deadlines
May
August
15 Carolina Bai/ Ecosystems: The State of Our Understanding, Pembroke, NC. Submission of abstracts for
invited and contributed papers as well as posters are requested for a symposium to be held July 22-24,
1998. For more information, contact Morgan A. McClure, Carolina Ecological Services, 2411 Savannah
Highway, Charleston, SC 29414. Phone: (803) 556-9795; fax: (803) 571-0275; e-mail:
.
1 Coastal Zone 1999, July 24-30,1999, San Diego, CA. Abstracts on the human dimension, the ocean
realm, the watershed perspective, and the public connection relating to coastal zone management are
invited. Contacts: Martin Miller, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.
Phone: (601) 634-3999; fax: (601) 634-4314; e-mail: and Peter Douglas,
California Coastal Commission at (415) 904-5201; or Chantal Lefebvre, Urban Harbors Institute,
phone: (617) 287-5577; fax: (617) 287-5575; e-mail: .
26 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
-------
Coupon
r
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon #51
(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 ^ Share Vour Clean mter Experiences
(check one or more) Q Ask for Information
Q Make a Suggestion
Write your story, ask your question, or make your suggestions here:
Attach additional pages if necessary.
Your Name:
Organization:
Address:
City/State:
Phone:
Please add my name to the mailing list to receive News-Notes free of charge.
Change my address, (Please send us your old address, too.)
Date:
Zip:
FAX:
APRIL/MAY 1998, ISSUE #51
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 27
------- |