r/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
jOffice Of Water
'(4504F)
EPA 842-F-94-002
November 1994
Innovations In Coastal Protection
Searching For Uncommon Solutions
To Common Problems
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ;.. 4
SECTION 1: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH APPROACHES
Multicultural Anglers Project 6
Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program 8
Officer Snook Marine Project ». 10
Videos Demonstrating North Carolina's Computer-Based Geographic Information System : 12
Falmouth Pond Watchers Water Quality Monitoring Program 14
Shorewatch Video Series for Cable Television 16
Home Guide for Medical Waste Dispbsal '. 18
Fish Net Collection and Recycling..; : 20
Marine Debris Collection and Recycling Program.... . '.. .22
Fisherman Promote Habitat Education and Protection : 24
Marine Sanctuary Watch , 26
BayKeeper. Prototype for Citizen Environmental Protection 28
Training Student Organizers Local Water Program's Local Waters Initiative 30
A Citizen Pollution Reporting System - 32
The Gaveston Bay Foundation: The Estuary Sampling Team (GBFTEST) 34
Concerned Citizens Protecting the Coquille River and Estuary . 36
Chollas Creek Watershed Protection Project 38
TARI F OF CONTFNTR
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACHES PAGE
Policy Considerations for Recycling Wastewatef Through Hydrologically Altered Wetlands , 40
Washington Coastal Erosion Management Strategy ; 42
The Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act Program ; 44
Wellfleet Harbor Mini-Bay Project , , 46
<-»
Mitchell Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Study 48
Equipment Buy-Down Project, Maumee River Basin, Ohio 50
Ecologically Based Environmental Management: Whole Ecosystem Approaches to Coastal Water Quality Problems ; 52
Neary Lagoon: Neglected Marsh Restored to Wildlife Refuge 54
A Management Strategy to Protect an Endangered Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem 56
The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Story 58
Sonoma County Wetlands Enhancement Program 60
Marine Resource Mitigation Program for the Impacts of a Coastal Nuclear Power Plant 62
Watershed Management Initiatives of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program .... 64
Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Project 66
Hanauma Bay Management Plan ; ., 68
Mass Bays Local Action: Local Governance Committees : : 70
Tomales Bay Watershed Restoration 72
North Richmond Shoreline 74
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 3: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES PAGE
Reduction of Foam Debris: Foam Encapsulation for Floating Structures in Oregon 76
Natural Wetlands for Control of Coastal Water Quality , 78
Marsh Terracing 80
Restoration and Construction of Coastal Wetlands 82
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Case Study: Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary 84
Stormwater Management on the Isle of Palms Connector 86
Composting By-Products from Blue Crab and Scallop Processing Plants :. 88
Cityof Arcata Wastewater Treatment Facility and Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary 90
Coastal Grassland Restoration, California Style .'< ; 92
Sonoma Baylands: Creating an Environmental Benefit out of the San Francisco Dredging Crisis 94
Huntington Wetlands Restoration Project : 96
Reduction of Estuarine Nutrient Loading: Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal in Coastal Swamp Areas , 98
Atlantic White Cedar Wetland Restoration 100
The Casco Bay Experience 102
APPENDICES
Listing by Author 104
Listing by Keyword. 106
Listing by State HI
Author Summary 113
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION TO THE COOKBOOK
"Innovations in Coastal Protection: Searching for Uncommon Solutions to
Common Problems," more commonly referred to as the "coastal cookbook,"
is an organized collection of successful coastal protection initiatives
recipesfrom across the country. Project summaries of successful initiatives
are included in three general topic areas including:
Public Education and Outreach Approaches
(e.g., using techniques such as citizen monitoring or storm drain stenciling)
Management Approaches
(e.g., overlay zoning, transfer of development rights, wetland banking and
conservation easements)
Scientific and Technical Approaches
(e.g., using wetlands for wastewater treatment or use of viral transport,
nitrogen loading or flushing models)
The following collection is the result of a "call for recipes" made in the summer
of 1993. The response was overwhelming. Hundreds of submissions were
received from widely varying groups across the country. The abstracts
included here were limited to two pages and were grouped into one of the three
general categories noted above.
Three peer groups (coinciding with the three general categories) were estab-
lished to review the submissions with each group consisting of between four
and seven experts in their respective fields. These peer groups helped select
those recipes most broadly applicable in a wide range of settings.
The body of the book itself is also grouped according to the three categories
listed above. Minimal editing was done (primarily for format and to fit the two
page limitation) so that the authors could tell their own stories. For each of the
submissions a number of key words were extracted - these are shown on the
band across the top of the page. Also shown is a locator map noting the site
of the project.
Appendices are provided for a list of projects sorted by author, by key words,
and by state, and an address list for authors.
It is our strong hope that this document will serve as a beginning rather than
ah endpoint. We hope that others who have a story to tell will do so; we have
provided a tear-out insert inside the back cover for the convenience of anyone
wishing to submit an abstract of another successful project. With your help,
this project will continue to grow.
The Editors
June 1994
INTRODUCTION
-------
INTRODUCTION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Editors would like to thank all the authors who submitted articles. The
range and quality of the submissions were truly remarkable. We would also
like to particularly thank the members of the peer review groups listed below
who shared their wisdom and experience in the selection of the enclosed
articles.
Management Approaches
Darnell Brown, US EPA
Charles App, US EPA .
Nancy McKay, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Clement Lewsey/Joelle Gore, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management
LaVeme Smith/Jill Parker, US Fish and Wildlife Service
William M. Eichbaum, World Wildlife Fund
Mark Curran, Battelle
Technical and Scientific Approaches
Steve Glomb, US EPA
Judith Weis, Rutgers University, Department of Biological Sciences
Norman Rubenstein, US EPA, Narragansett Lab
John Armstrong, US EPA, Region X
Public Education and Outreach
Ray Hall, US EPA
Janet Pawlukiewicz, US EPA
Frances Flanigan, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Diane Barile, Marine Resources Council, Florida
Mary Sue Maurer, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
Special thanks to Marian Mlay, Director of the USEPA Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, forher role
in initiating this project and bringing it to fruition.
This document was prepared by Horsley &Witten, Inc. for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds,
under Contract No. 68-C2-0134. The views and policies presented in this
document are those of the authors and consequently do not necessarily reflect
those of the US EPA, or of Horsley & Witten, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
-------
SAN FRANCISCO BAV-EU&TA E$TfUA«y,
MULTICULTURAL ANGLERS PROJECT
BY MARCIA BROCKBANK
PURPOSE
The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is one of the most threatened estuaries
in the nation. The region discharges an estimated 5,000 - 40,000 metric tons
of at least 65 pollutants into the Estuary each year. Pollution is particularly
acute in the highly industrialized South San Francisco Bay, which receives 60
percent of all point source pollution discharged into the entire Estuary. Both
federal and state health authorities have issued warnings about the risks
associated with consuming tainted fish caught in the Estuary.
Pollution in the Estuary poses a hidden
hazard to people of color and immi-
grants, who often supplement their pro-
tein intake by catching and eating local
fish. Because health warnings are sel-
dom visible at fishing sites and are
printed only in English, many anglers
are unaware of these hazards. They are '
even less aware of their right to participate in the decision-making processes
that will determine the process whereby the Estuary is made safe for fishing.
In response to this situation, Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE)
developed its Multicultural Anglers Project (the Project), funded in part by a
grant from the San Francisco Estuary Project. Through the Project, CBE
prepared multilingual education and outreach materials and disseminated
them to people who regularly fish for food in South San Francisco Bay. CBE
also identified, informed, and involved a new and multiracial set of Estuary
advocates among people who regularly fish in the South Bay.
BACKGROUND
In spring 1992, CBE conducted a survey of anglers who fish in the South Bay.
Pollution in the San Francisco Bay-
Delta Estuary poses a hidden hazard to
people of color and immigrants.
CBE discovered that the majority are low income residents, people of color,
and immigrants who depend upon the Bay for food, but are unaware of the
toxic contents of their catch. Approximately six months later (fall 1992), CBE
hired a field organizer and initiated the Multicultural Anglers Project.
To spearhead the Project, CBE hired one field organizer, who is supervised by
CBE's campaign organizer. The field organizer also receives CBE adminis-
trative staff support. In addition, the
field organizer and Project benefit from
the support of numerous volunteers
from community organizations and the
Project's constituency.
CBE's field organizer is in daily con-
tact with the Project's constituency and
supporting community organizations.
This outreach occurs on the fishing piers, at meetings, and via telephone. This
type of consistent outreach has been integral to the Project's success.
The cost of the Project was $23,938.
KEY PLAYERS
Citizens for a Better Environment - provides technical (research) support.
Southbay Anglers for Environmental Rights (SAFER) - a CBE chapter, as
the main organizing vehicle for the Project, SAFER is responsible for
distributing educational materials to the Project's constituency and in-
volving anglers in the Project's outreach efforts.
Various Bay Area Community Organizations (over 20 are involved) - help
facilitate educational outreach efforts to the Project's constituency.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
NATIONAL ESTUARY
PUBLIC OUTREACH
FISHERIES
METHODOLOGY
To implement its Multicultural Anglers Project, CBE used the following
methodology:
Step 1 - Analyze Information Needs: Using existing research materials, CBE
determined the health and environmental information and translation needs of
South Bay anglers. CBE also prepared angler fishing surveys in English,
Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Chinese, and Laotian and began
distributing them at bait shops and piers throughout the South Bay. These
surveys served to gather demographic and fish consumption information at the
grassroots level.
Step 2 - Prepare and Translate Written Materials: CBE prepared and translated
information sheets in English, Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and
Chinese. These information sheets highlight the California, Environmental
Protection Agency's official health warning on eating the Bay's tainted catch,
outline additional health risks to which anglers can be exposed from consump-
tion, identify which individuals and agencies anglers may contact for more
information on the South Bay's pollution problems, and suggest solutions to
these problems.
Step 3 - Talk to Anglers Directly: CBE's field organizer is currently
distributing the educational materials and the surveys on an ongoing basis at
bait shops and piers throughout the South Bay.
Step 4 - Distribute Information to Institutions and Leaders: As a response to
poor and unsafe fishing conditions, CBE initiated Southbay Anglers for
Environmental Rights (SAFER), a chapter of CBE comprised of anglers who
are concerned about the degraded state of the South Bay and the threats to their
health from toxic pollution in the Estuary. It will serve as the Multicultural
Angler Project's main organizing vehicle and will help open up the environ-
mental decision-making process to individuals from multicultural communi-
ties who often experience the worst effects of toxic pollution.
The Project is receiving enthusiastic support from numerous community-
based ethnic and environmental organizations around the Bay Area. To date,
24 organizations have formally endorsed a CBE-drafted resolution that asks
various state agencies to post multilingual health warnings about the hazards
associated with eating fish caught in the Bay. The resolution further asks these
agencies to devise a proactive plan that addresses the Bay's pollution prob-
lems. Due to the efforts of CBE and SAFER, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has posted multilingual health warnings at two piers over which it has
jurisdiction. Representatives of CBE, SAFER, California EPA, and the
Department of Fish and Game met recently to discuss the need for multilingual
health warnings and their respective concerns.
LESSONS LEARNED
Translation of the Project's educational materials into the appropriate lan-
guages was key to the Project's success, as was direct and consistent contact
with the Project's constituency. Ongoing surveys and interviews of affected
anglers helped to define the constituency and the parameters of the problem
that the Project sought to address. Those working on the Project did not
encounter any contentious situations or experience events that should be
avoided by others. If others were to undertake this type of project, a priority
should be to make direct contact with the affected constituency and ensure that
this constituency is integrally involved in the project's efforts.
RELATED MATERIALS
For further information, please contact: Marcia Brockbank San Francisco
Estuary Project, P.O. Box 2050, Oakland, CA 94604-2050. 510-464-7992/
510-464-7970 Fax
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
BAY; VIRGINIA, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA
CHESAPEAKE BAY CITIZEN MONITORING PROGRAM
BY MARCY JUDD
PURPOSE
The Chesapeake Bay Gtizen Monitoring Program was designed to determine:
1. if volunteers could gather water quality data that met rigorous quality
control standards;
2. if data collected at nearshore locations reflected the water quality of the river
in general;
3. what were the most reliable sampling
procedures, reporting formats and data
management systems; and
4. if it was feasible to include a permanent,
bay-wide citizen monitoring network
among the long-term Bay management
strategies of the state and federal gov-
ernments. Since its beginning, the pro-
gram has grown to more than 150 vol-
unteers at over 110 sites on the
Lynnhaven, Elizabeth, James, York,
Rappahannock, Piankatank, and
Potomac Rivers, as well as on the creeks and embayments of the Eastern
Shore in Virginia; the Patuxent, Middle, and Severn Rivers in Maryland;
and Conodoguinet Creek and the Conestoga River in Pennsylvania.
BACKGROUND
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay has conducted a volunteer water quality
monitoring program since 1985. In June, 1985 the pilot program began with
12 monitors on the James River in Virginia and 16 monitors on the Patuxent
River in Maryland with one regional coordinator. The project was budgeted
at $47,000 for the first year.
In 1992, Chesapeake Bay Citizen
Monitoring Program data were for the
first time included as a component in
Virginia's 30S(b) Report to EPA and
Congress.
METHODOLOGY
The parameters tested are: air and water temperature, Secchi disk depth and
total depth, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, and precipitation.
Monitors also record wildlife observations, field observations of water condi-
tions and color, weather, and general conditions of the site. Monitors sample
weekly throughout the year. In addition, nutrient sampling began at 11 sites
in Maryland in 1990 and at ten sites in Virginiain 1992 in conjunction with the
Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental
Quality. The Maryland sites were chosen to
track the water quality changes after sewage
treatment upgrades on the Patuxent River.
Ten sites were chosen in areas of submerged
aquatic vegetation (S A V) in Virginia. Moni-
tors collect and filter samples which are
analyzed in a laboratory for dissolved inor-
ganic nitrogen and dissolved inorganic phos-
phorus. Results will be used to help evalu-
ate present status and future trends of nutri-
ent concentrations in SAV growing areas.
Concentrations can be compared to SAV
habitat growing criteria developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program. Recently
seven monitors have begun to monitor for Zebra Mussels in Virginia. An
atmospheric deposition study and a riparian inventory were conducted in
Pennsylvania.
Citizen monitoring sites are located in near-shore areas. The data gathered are
being used by the Chesapeake Bay Program to compare water quality in these
relatively shallow waters and the mid-channels of major rivers. Data gener-
ated by this program are also being used by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality in its surface water assessment program. The wildlife
observations, made referring to a field guide, provide input to the Virginia
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
CITIZEN MONITORING
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' "Biota of Virginia" database of
sightings of common or ordinary species.
KEY PLAYERS
It took four months to implement the project following approval of the
proposal by the Implementation Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
A small group of research scientists worked on the citizen monitoring program
plan and proposal for about one year. Full time coordinators work to maintain
the program, implement projects and motivate volunteers. An important
motivator is the documentation of the use of data to the volunteers.
At the outset, some researchers and state managers were not convinced that
volunteers were capable of collecting quality data. Others were only inter-
ested in data gathering and were not concerned with the public involvement
and educational value of the program. Changing their minds was one obstacle.
In planning a project like this it is important to allow for plenty of time to
implement phases of the project. Plans may need to change and this takes time.
Recently, to better manage the expanded program, a data management
software program was developed, field tested and revised to enter data and
create graphic reports. The program was presented at the second annual
Virginia Environmental Education Conference, Third National Citizen Moni-
toring Conference and the Coastal Society Conference. Data from the field is
imported to a central computer where it is available for individual reports to
monitors. This software, called CitMori*MAN, makes it possible for monitors
to see the seasonal trends in their data and is a great tool for motivating
volunteers. All data are also sent on disk to the Chesapeake Bay Program
Office in Annapolis where it is accessed by state agencies. The data
management program is now being distributed to new monitoring programs
around the nation.
Also, the watershed coordinator system was developed as a way of decentral-
izing management tasks. The 100-site monitoring network in Virginia was
divided into 10 smaller units each containing approximately 10 monitors. Ten
volunteer watershed coordinators were recruited to act as managers taking
requests, troubleshooting, acting as liaisons to the Virginia Coordinator and
most importantly, managing the data generated by the watershed group. The
data collected by each watershed coordinator from approximately lOmonitors
is sent to the Richmond office central computer on disk where it is compiled
and prepared for inclusion in state agency reports.
LESSONS LEARNED
In 1992, Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program data were for the first
time included as a component in Virginia's 305(b) Report to EPA and
Congress. Given the distribution potential of the network's sampling sites it
is anticipated that the data will be of particular value to local governments and
jurisdictions throughout the Commonwealth. The Board's Ambient Water
Quality Monitoring Network cannot cover all waters of the state. In an effort
to increase the assessment coverage of the report and to give a more accurate
portrayal of water quality in these areas, data generated by the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay's Citizen Monitoring Program were used. For the first time,
citizen-generated data were used to make water quality assessments on
waterbodies not previously covered by the state.
RELATED MATERIALS
For additional information, please contact: Marcy Judd, Chesapeake Bay
Citizen Monitoring Program, P.O. Box 1981, Richmond, VA 23216.
804-775-0951/804-775-0954 Fax
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
NATIONWIDE
OFFICER SNOOK MARINE PROJECT
BY JENNIFER SEVIN, STUDENT
PURPOSE
Officer Snook is a cartoon character who symbolizes the importance of
environmental protection. Officer Snook is an environmental program aimed
at making students aware of marine pollution, the effects pollution has on our
water content, animal and plant populations, and human safety. By educating
our youth about toxins and marine debris, I am hoping tp open young eyes to.
the problems facing our world today and encourage children to make a
difference for the world of tomorrow.
BACKGROUND
The Officer Snook Program consists of
a45 minute presentation which includes
Center For Marine Conservation slides
and a video entitled 'Trashing Our
Oceans". The program also includes
oral presentations and a United States
Coast Guard representative who speaks
and answers questions. All students
participating in the program receive a
complimentary Officer Snook coloring and activities book. An Officer Snook
T-shirt is given to selected students who participate in the essay and drawing
contest.
METHODOLOGY
The Officer Snook Program, since its inception, has taken two years to
implement. After creating the coloring and activities book, a copy was sent to
the United States Coast Guard in Washington, DC, asking for approval and
support Following their approval a proposal was submitted to the Dade
County Public School Board for further approval for use in county schools. I
/ encourage people everywhere) but es-
pecially students, to get involved in pre-
serving our environment, I hope others
mil create projects such as mine to help
educate our young people*,
proceeded to promote the coloring book by making numerous calls to various
organization, making presentations to schools across the county, and publiciz-
ing the program through newspaper articles and radio interviews.
KEY PLAYERS
-»
The Coast Guard has recently approved the program for national distribution,
however, much financial sponsorship is needed in order to keep the program
in operation. Royal Crown Cola sponsored the printing of the first ten
thousand books at a cost of approxi-
mately $2,500. These funds were used
and additional funding is currently be-
ing sought. I have just graduated high
school and will be attending the Univer-
sity of Central Florida in the fall of 1993.
I have been giving workshops to other
students who will continue to present the
program. In addition, I have written a
curriculum booklet and, in the future,
plan to make an Officer Snook video and
board game. In the Project, I encourage
people everywhere, but especially students, to get involved in preserving our
environment. I hope others will create projects such as mine to help educate
our young people. It takes hard work, patience, and dedication, but I believe
it is all worthwhile. By combining all elements of the program, I hope to
accomplish my goals. The Officer Snook program shows that all people will
celebrate a better, cleaner future.
Special thanks to Admiral Leahy, Commander Dillon, and Ensign Lang of the
Seventh Coast Guard District and Heidi Lovett of the Center for Marine
Conservation.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
PUBLIC OUTREACH
YOUTH ACTIVITIES
RELATED MATERIALS
For further information, please contact Jennifer Sevin, 2550 Douglas Road,
Coral Gables, FL 33134. 305-443-3343/305-443-3033 Fax
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
VIDEOS DEMONSTRATING NORTH CAROLINA'S COMPUTER-
BASED GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM BY JOAN GIORDANO
PURPOSE
The widespread computerization of data on land uses, pollution sources,
wetlands, and other factors that affect local planning has led to the creation of
sophisticated planning instruments known as Geographic Information Sys-
tems (CIS). In many areas, CIS is revolutionizing local planning by making
it easier for officials to visualize the potential impacts of new development on
the environment and therefore able to minimize those impacts.
The second video, "Planning the Future", follows a developer through a
simulated case history of finding a suitable location for a coastal development.
This 10-minute video demonstrates how CIS can overlay data on an area map
to indicate the presence of wetlands, shellfish beds, or other resources that
would likely restrict the development allowed in certain vicinities or require
lengthy permitting processed. In turn, areas where little permitting would be
necessary would also be defined, thus helping the developer identify sites
where pre-construction activities would be kept to a minimum.
BACKGROUND
In many rural counties of eastern North
Carolina, however, there exists little
money for planners and little knowl-
edge of the capabilities of CIS. Spread-
ing the word of the state's extensive GIS
is an important step in getting develop-
ers and small local governments to take
advantage of the services available. To
help promote the state's GIS program,
the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study (APES), a National Estuary Program,
produced two videos which describe GIS and demonstrate ways it can enhance
planning and expedite permitting processes.
METHODOLOGY
The first video, "A Coastal County in 2010: Planning with GIS", describes the
capabilities of GIS and shows how planers can manipulate data layers to better
visualize the impacts of various activities. The 13-minute video also provides
insight from planners who have used the system and gives advice on ways that
local governments or persons without their own GIS can utilize or access the
state system.
The flrst video, "A Coastal County in
2010: Planning with GIS'*, describes the
capabilities of GIS and shows how plan-
ers can manipulate data layers to better
visualize the impacts of various activities.
KEY PLAYERS
In addition to producing these videos
and distributing them widely to local
governments and civic organizations
to help promote use of GIS, APES has
helped expand the data layers available
through the system as well by provid-
ing over $1 million in funding to the
NC Center for Geographic Information
and Analysis (CGIA), which adminis-
ters the GIS. APES is also encouraging more access to GIS by recommending
that systems be made available on a regional basis, thus making it easier for
officials from smaller rural counties to utilize the data.
Actual production of the videos cost about $12,000 and $13,500 respectively,
and each required about three months to film and edit.
LESSONS LEARNED
Nothing seems so much in demand in environmental management as the
ability to see into the future. While GIS does not provide that, it does greatly
enhance the planning process. Helping more people understand how GIS can
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
PUBLIC OUTREACH
GIS
help and how they can gain access to it will bring a much needed element of
predictability to the often confusing arena of local planning.
RELATED MATERIALS
For further information, please contact Joan Giordano at the Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine Study, P.O. Box 1507, Washington, NC 27889.
919-946-6481
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
FALMOUTH POND WATCHERS WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
BY TRACEY I. CRAGO
PURPOSE
The citizen volunteer monitoring effort for the coastal ponds of Falmouth,
Massachusetts, better known as "Falmouth Pond Watchers Program," was
initiated in 1987 in response to concern over apparently deteriorating water
quality of circulation-restricted coastal salt ponds. The fundamental purpose
of the program is to provide quantitative, high quality environmental data for
the development of management plans. This is accomplished by a unique
partnership between scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(WHOI), the WHOI Sea Grant Program, the Town of Falmouth, and citizen
volunteers. The objectives of the study are to provide the Town with
information on water quality conditions in the ponds, to help plan watershed
land use and to help guide potential remediation plans. In addition, the project
was designed to involve local citizens directly in determining the ecological
health of their coastal ponds and harbors, as well as to draw community
attention to the increasing human pressures on our fragile coastal resources.
BACKGROUND
In 1987, concern about increasing eutrophication of coastal salt ponds was
voiced at Falmouth's annual town meeting. Unable to appropriate funding
necessary for a diagnostic study of these ponds, the town did its best by
allocating "seed" money of $5,000 to help initiate a water quality study under
the auspices of the town planning board. Dr. David A. Ross, WHOI Sea Grant
Coordinator and a town meeting member, suggested that WHOI Sea Grant
might be able to provide supplemental funds. That summer, Ross, Dr. Brian
Howes, the WHOI biologist who oversees the project, Dale Goehringer, a
research associate in Howes' laboratory, and Alan White, former WHOI Sea
Grant Marine Advisory leader, developed plans for a water quality study of
three different ponds. A two-part project, the plans called for a preliminary
survey conducted by WHOI personnel, followed by a comprehensive two-
year water quality monitoring study involving the participation of citizen
volunteers. The project proposed a somewhat unique partnership between
citizens, town officials, environmental managers, and a research laboratory.
The project was designed to provide the Town of Falmouth with an ongoing,
comprehensive database of water quality conditions in the ponds in prepara-
tion for the Coastal Pond Overlay Bylaw, which went into effect the following
year. The bylaw specifies annual mean threshold values for total nitrogen
concentrations in Falmouth's coastal ponds to protect them from declines that
result from increasing nutrient inputs caused by development. With informa-
tion from the Pond Watchers project, the town felt it would be better prepared
to assess future management options such as enlarging arid improving the
ponds' outlets to the sea, increase^ sewering, limits on lawn fertilization,
installation of denitrifying septic systems, re-zoning, or building moratoria.
KEY PLAYERS
With financial support from the Town and the WHOI Sea Grant Program, the
project was off to a start, but the issue of volunteers to conduct the sampling
remained unanswered. The project organizers appealed to the citizens of
Falmouth for help through newspaper articles, radio and television. Quickly,
55 people volunteered. Six years later, most of the volunteers are "originals,"
and several new recruits have joined each year. Volunteers range in age from
high school students to retirees. Some live on or near the ponds sampled in the
study; others drive several miles to participate in the sampling.
METHODOLOGY
An advantage of the Pond Watchers program over other types of monitoring
programs revolves around sampling methodology. Because of the large
number of volunteers, simultaneous sampling is conducted at 34 stations on
each sampling date. This provides data collected under the same conditions
of weather and tide, critical to making system to system or station to station
comparisons.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
CITIZEN MONITORING
Training is held each year, prior to the start of the sampling season. At these
sessions, volunteers are briefed on the ecology of the ponds and potential
changes they might see, issued sampling kits, and told of the goals of the
sampling program. Volunteers use their own boats to collect water column
samples at the surface, and varying depths and record oxygen and
temperature readings. Additional water samples are collected and taken to the
laboratory for more in-depth testing. Physical measurements such as water
color, total depth at sampling site, temperature, and light penetration are also
taken. In addition to the summer sampling schedule, year-round rain gauge
data, bird census, and general observations are conducted by the volunteers.
LESSONS LEARNED
The effectiveness of the Pond Watchers Program lies both in the enthusiasm
and dedication of the Pond Watchers and the unique partnership developed
between the citizens, local government, and scientists, whereby information
gained from the research can be swiftly and directly applied toward effective
management decisions for these fragile environments.
The importance of long-term data sets in evaluating trends in coastal water
quality cannot be understated. Without yearto year comparisons of ecological
conditions it is impossible to evaluate apparent changes in water quality
relative to natural processes (such as storms or natural shoreline changes) or
anthropogenic (such as development)' impacts. The consistent and high
quality data provided by the Falmouth Pond Watchers are now enabling
evaluation of various potential management directions for each individual
system relative to both cost and ecological effectiveness.
Another important aspect of the Falmouth Pond Watcher Program is its wide-
ranging applicability to other types of coastal systems. Techniques and
methods used by the Pond Watchers have been specifically designed so that
virtually any coastal community can undertake this type of effort efficiently
but at low cost. The success of this program is reflected in its adoption as a
model for the EPA Bays Program/Buzzards Bay Project Citizen's Monitoring
Program, and a numberof other communities currently exploring mechanisms
to establish similar programs for their own harbors and ponds. The program
was also recognized nationally in 1991 when the National Environmental
Awards Council cited the Pond Watchers Program for a National Environ-
mental Achievement Award. In 1992, Renew America recognized the
program as an innovative model for grassroots environmental protection
programs and included it in its Environmental Success Index for 1992.
The Pond Watchers Program has been relatively free of problems, although
important lessons have been learned. It was apparent from the start that a basic
understanding of the science underlying the design of the monitoring regime
was important to insuring samples were collected correctly by the participants.
Careful measures have been taken to educate volunteers about the ecological
processes at work, so that, should sampling problems occur on-site, Pond
Watchers are able to make decisions about how to handle them. To reinforce
this principle and build confidence in the volunteers, the Pond Watchers are
presented with basic ecological principals governing the ponds as well as an
overview on how the incoming data relates to these principalson an annual
basis, prior to the sampling season.
Other bits of advice: have an organizational strategy. Pond Watcher's are
divided into subgroups (by Pond); each pond has a designated "Pond Captain"
to oversee each group. This strategy maximized efficiency of the sampling
logistics and minimized the amount of time required for distribution and
collection of sampling gear and samples, while providing an avenue for
increased cooperation between each group of volunteers. Lastly, data col-
lected by volunteers should always be interpreted by qualified personnel.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
SHORE WATCH VIDEO SERIES FOR CABLE TELEVISION
PURPOSE
During the last decade, the popularity of video as a media form has become
akin to the introduction of television in the 1950s. Recognizing the opportu-
nities afforded by such a versatile media form, many organizations have
chosen to use video to get their message out to intended audiences.
Included in the thousands of videos produced each year are many excellent
productions on issues dealing with marine and coastal topics. Most of these
are not readily available to the public, due to limited funding for publicity,
limited distribution capabilities, or other reasons. The Woods Hole Oceano-
graphic Institution's (WHOI) Sea Grant Program and the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Office (MCZM) have teamed up to bring such
video productions to the general ^public via cable access television channels,
where they can be enjoyed by a large audience at no charge to the producer or
the viewer. This project accomplishes one of the key objectives of the WHOI
Sea Grant Program and MCZM: public outreach and education about issues
pertaining to wise use and enjoyment of the coastal and marine environment
BACKGROUND
The Sea Grant-MCZM partnership has been successful in not only acquiring
numerous videos but also permission to show them on cable access television
stations throughout Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, andNantucket. The effort
has been named SHOREWATCH: A Forum for Coastal Issues and Outreach,
and is now carried on six cable access channels, with plans underway to
expand to the rest of the Massachusetts coastline. The SHOREWATCH series
makes use of numerous publicly-funded videos produced by organizations
such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
EPA, Sea Grant Programs, as well as videos from private production compa-
nies. Videos included in the SHOREWATCH series fit under the themes of
Resource Preservation, Coastal Erosion, Wetlands and Wildlife, Water Re-
source Management, Fisheries Management, Recreational Boating & Fish-
ing, Aquaculture, Marine Debris, Hurricanes, and other miscellaneous pro-
ductions that involve the marine and coastal environment. Each "episode"
lasts approximately 30 minutes.
KEY PLAYERS
In the Spring of 1992, the WHOI Sea Grant Program was exploring ways to
distribute more information to the public through the media. While its-
relationship with print media and radio was established, there was no history
of work with video or television. At this time, the Sea Grant Program was
looking into use of videos produced by other Sea Grant Programs within the
National Program network foruse in local schools. At the same time, the Cape
Cod office of MCZM was investigating similar uses of videos.
Learning of the mutual interest in video productions, SHOREWATCH
producers Tracey Crago, Communicator at WHOI Sea Grant and MCZM
Regional Coordinator Pam Rubinoff, met with the programming director of
Cape Cod Community Television (C3TV), who offered the use of C3TV
facilities and station volunteers. SHOREWATCH was created as a result of
that meeting. In September, 1992, a mini-SHOREWATCH series (4 videos)
on hurricanes debuted on C3TV. Within one year, three complete 13-week
series of SHOREWATCH were cablecast, and five stations added, covering
nearly every town on Cape Cod as well as Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.
As with most cooperative projects, there are many key players. Each of the
programming managers at the community cable stations that we work with
have been extremely cooperative, supportive, and flexible. Producers and
environmental organizations throughout the U.S. have graciously donated
their productions. The generosity and willingness of groups and individuals
to cooperate for the sake of educating and informing the public about various
coastal and marine issues continues to amaze the SHOREWATCH producers.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
PUBLIC OUTREACH
VIDEO
The SHOREW ATCH series concept has been well-received by video produc-
ers, funding agencies, cable station programming managers, the coastal
communities, schools, and environmental organizations.
Costs forthe SHOREWATCH series havebeenminimal; the idea for the series
came in the middle of the funding cycles for both MCZM and WHOI Sea Grant
and, therefore, SHOREWATCH was not a budgeted project. This has actually
become a plus; producers have made use of volunteers and interns, and
continually rely upon the generosity of cable station personnel and volunteers.
Virtually every video used in the series has been donated at no charge to the
project; purchased videos have been acquired at a reduced rate. Duplication
of the videos, for distribution to the six cable stations now participating, has
been done by volunteers usingequipment at C3TV studios and SHOREWATCH
producers are charged only for the actual cost of the videotapes, not the labor
or use of the facilities. To date, the main cost incurred is the producers' time.
For three complete 13-week series' and the introductory 4-week hurricane
series, the budget has been approximately $2,800 (including travel and salary
time for producers). . ,
METHODOLOGY
During the evolution of SHOREW ATCH, many questions were asked. Are
there good video productions out there that deal with coastal and marine
issues? Is there sufficient interest among the general public to learn more
about these issues? How would an average citizen find out about such
productions or go about obtaining a copy or viewing it? Can WHOI Sea Grant
and MCZM play a role in getting these productions and making them available
to the public? What format or forum should we look at to make the connection
between these productions and the general public? How can we do it so that
all sides will feel they are gaining something? The format of cable access/
community television stations emerged as most attractive for a number of
reasons: it does not involve a fee; most towns have either a community
television station or a local cable channel; such stations have either an
obligation and/or interest in programming that can be considered informa-
tional, educational, and that pertains to local issues; and, community television
stations are readily available to a wide portion of the general public and
schools. A drawback, certainly, is that cable access channels do not have a
large viewing audience. We have tried to overcome this obstacle by heavily
advertising the series in newsletters, newspaper and magazine calendars,
tourist guides, and other publications that have wide distribution on Cape Cod
and the Islands.
LESSONS LEARNED
One of the few difficult situations that the SHOREWATCH series faced was
in dealing with small, private production companies. Understandably, they
were hesitant to part with productions for free, since their livelihood depends
on sales. Although we did not overcome each of these hurdles, often we have
been granted permission to use such productions as long as we include a trailer
at the end of the production which listed information about purchasing the
video. Bits of advice to anyone interested in putting together a similar program
in their town: have a legal agreement drawn up which clearly spells out the
"terms and conditions" of the series and how the production will be used, and
have the producer or owner of the production sign it, date it, and return it before
you include the production in the series. It is extremely important to abide by
any restrictions place on your use of productions. Lastly, be careful that you
aren't inadvertently "selling" a concept, product, or opinion by including a
production that may be biased orcontain inaccurate information. The best way
to avoid such a situation: screen all productions and, if necessary, have them
reviewed by someone knowledgeable about its subject matter.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
RHODE ISLAND
HOME GUIDE FOR MEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL
t
BY DlANN J. MlELE
PURPOSE
Waste disposal is an on-going problem for many communities. In recent years,
medical waste disposal has posed even more difficulties with the appearance
of needles, syringes, and othersimilaritems on our beaches. Reports produced
in the aftermath of the 1987 and 1988 Northeast beach washups indicated that
most of this waste was not from health care facilities, but rather resulted from
illegal drug use and from medical items (syringes) used in the home. Public
pressure has resulted in the enactment of facility-based medical waste regula-
tions in forty-nine states, but few states
regulate home-generated medical waste.
BACKGROUND
In Rhode Island, it was found that dia-
betics and others routinely flush used
syringes down their toilets. For the
patient, this practice seemed an inex-
pensive, safe, and easy solution to dis-
pose of a potentially dangerous waste item. However, the syringes flushed
down the toilet do not disappear, the effluent from the Rhode Island wastewa-
ter treatment system eventually goes directly into Narragansett Bay and then
into the Atlantic Ocean. Plastic items, such as syringes, are considered
"floatables" and are not easily removed in the wastewater treatment process.
Hence, these home-generated syringes reappear, rather than disappear.
METHODOLOGY
To alleviate this environmental and public health hazard, the Rhode Island
Department of Health (DOH) along with the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management (DEM) have developed a pamphlet describing
better ways to dispose of home-generated syringes. The pamphlet is entitled,
In recent years, medical waste disposal
has posed even more difficulties with
the appearance of needles, syringes,
and other similar items on our beaches.
"Home Guide for Disposal of Medical Wastes", and was funded in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The pamphlet
presents a safer and more environmentally-friendly way to handle, store, and
dispose of home generated-medical wastes.
KEY PLAYERS
The "Home Guide" project took one year from the initial development idea to
the final printed copy. The copy was written by DOH and DEM staff, while
the pamphlet's graphics were done by
a professional firm. Some ideas pre-
sented in the pamphlet were borrowed
from the EPA and other state agencies'
brochures. A draft of the guide was
reviewed by otherdivisions in the DOH
and the DEM, including the Acquired
immune Deficiency Syndrome/Sexu-
ally Transmitted Diseases, Division of
the RI DOH and the Environmental
Coordination Division of the RI DEM. Private home health agencies were also
invited to comment on the draft.
After these comments were incorporated, 2,000 copies of the brochure were
printed and sent to all municipal waste handlers, home health care agencies
and hospital outpatient clinics in the state. (Police departments were sent the
guide at a later date.) Along with the guide was a questionnaire asking for any
other comments and requesting an estimate of the number of guides that each
group would anticipate distributing over one year. Responses received ranged
from 20 guides to 1500 guides needed per month. From this information, an
additional 10,000 pamphlets were printed in anticipation of a one year supply.
The total cost of printing the 12,000 guides was $1,000.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
PUBLIC OUTREACH
MARINE DEBRIS
LESSONS LEARNED
One problem was encountered when the original guide recommended the use
of empty 2-liter soda bottles as a container for sharps. That recommendation
was based on a Washington State Department of Ecology's research project
designed to find the toughest and most easily accessible container to store and
dispose of home syringes. The PET plastic 2-liter soft drink bottle was found
to be the best container for used home-care syringes in that study. However,
the Rhode Island recycling law mandates that PET bottles be recycled. It was
thought that these containers, full of syringes, would end up in the recycling
facility, causing harm to both workers and machinery. After much discussion,
the PET containers were removed from the guide.
Another problem involved the cost with printing. The DEM had funds
available for these two printings, but thatywill probably be all. Funding from
other sources (i.e., private foundations) will be needed in order to print more
guides when this supply runs out On a similar note, many agencies have
requested this pamphlet in Spanish, but there are no translation services
available. The concern is that others will copy the guide when the supply is
diminished and by doing so the guide will lose the quality that it now has.
Both the DEM and the DOH believe that the "Home Guide for the Disposal
of Medical Wastes" aids in solving many of the health and environmental
problems created by the disposal of home-generated medical wastes. This
guide employs basic, simple, and inexpensive solutions to avoid a potential
threat to our coastline.
RELATED MATERIALS
For further information, please contact Diann Miele at the Office of Health
Risk Assessment, State of Rhode Island Department of Health, Cannon
Building, Three Capitol Hill, Providence, RI02908-5097. 401-277-3424
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
PACIFIC NORTHWEST
FISH NET COLLECTION AND RECYCLING
BY FRAN RECHT
PURPOSE
This program addressed the solid waste problem posed by the need to dispose
of 500,000 or more pounds of old nylon gill net each year by salmon and
herring fishermen in the Pacific Northwest. This netting material is a hassle
to landfill operators as it ensnares their equipment. In some remote Alaskan
sites, where no landfills are available, the nets create health and fire risks when
they are burned. This program sought to work with fishermen, cities, and ports
to establish on-going community collection efforts for the used net material
and to assure that this nylon was recycled into
useful secondary products.
BACKGROUND
The first shipping container of 47,000 Ibs of
nets was marketed overseas and made into
bicycle seats in January 1992, about three years
after the program was first established. These
nets came primarily from collection areas in
two fishing ports, but nets were also contrib-
uted from two other ports. 14 areas are now
collecting nets and participating in the pro-
gram. A second shipment of 47,000 Ibs of nets was marketed about a year after
the first, and within that same time frame another like quantity was collected
in the various sites, but had not yet been consolidated for shipping. Work with
local project coordinators, fishermen, ports, and the recycler is necessary until
the program is smoothly and routinely operating. Clear signage, notices, and
periodic press articles are also necessary. 16 people are the direct contacts for
this effort, though many city and port officials, fishermen, fishing groups, and
fish processing plant operators in each community and port area are involved.
Though this effort has been supported by a $20,000 National Marine Fisheries
Service and a $30,000 Environmental Protection Agency grant, the economics
are such that once the collection efforts are established, the recycling effort
will be self sustaining.
KEY PLAYERS
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Environmental Protection Agency
provided funding. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission initiated
and coordinated this effort. The Ports of Bellingham, Seattle, Anacortes, and
Everett, Washington provide space for the collection containers and day to day
oversight of the collection areas. The Cities of Cordova, Naknek, Kenai, and
King Cove, Alaska are involved through the baling of the nets or the collection
of nets at their landfills. A citizen volunteer effort in Cordova has been crucial
to that program' s success and the Cordova
District Fishermen United helps efforts
by coordinating an "adopt a bin" program.
Petersburg Fisheries, a seafood process-
ing company and individual fishing boats
coordinate the transport of the nets to the
Seattle area. The Chamber of Commerce
is involved in recycling efforts in
Dillingham, Alaska. The United Cook
Inlet Drift Association, a fishing organi-
zation, has worked with processing plants,
the city, and the refuse and recycling
contractor to coordinate collection efforts on the Kenai Peninsula. Individual
fishermen work in Wrangell and Haines, Alaska and in Cathlamet, WA (on the
Columbia River) to coordinate efforts with their peers. Skagit River Steel and
Recycling, the recycling company which has worked with the project from the
start and has provided technical and logistical recommendations and support,
and marketing expertise, has worked with cities to encourage a comprehensive
recycling program which involves handling nets as well as the more standard
recyclables.
The first shipping container of
47JOOO Ibs of nets was marketed
overseas and made into bicycle
seats in January 1992,,,
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
MARINE DEBRIS
FISHERIES
METHODOLOGY
1. Identified the type of nylon used in the webbing.
2. Located markets for the materials.
3. Established collection sites in those port areas where there were high
levels of fishing activity and in those which could serve as centralized
collection points.
4. Worked with a recycler who was willing to experiment with baling the
nets, working with the ports and communities, and finding markets for
the nylon.
5. Worked with local coordinators who could promote the program, worked
with local fishermen, city, port, recyclers to get bins in place and work
through problems. Also worked directly with some port managers.
6. Worked to assure a collection system which minimized net handling and
collection container moving.
7. Purchased and placed collection bins and signage.
8. Widely promoted the program through notices, press articles, and industry
meetings and shows.
LESSONS LEARNED
1. Project is positive p.r. for all involved.
2. Coordinators in each collection site are essential.
3. Quality control is critical-netting must be clean, If ever in doubt,
fishermen should throw it out.
4. Removal of gear from nets and cooperation from fishermen to this end is
essential. Reminders necessary.
5. Need to keep program visible and to check back with all players periodi-
cally for any necessary problem solving.
6. Streamline collection to help assure program continuity.
7. Work to establish and maintain a good relationship with the recycler.
Understand and relay the recycler's need for strict quality control. ,
RELATED MATERIALS
A report on initial collection efforts with suggestions for others is available
from National Marine Fisheries Service, Marine Entanglement Research
Program. 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Bin C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
206-526-4004. Progress reports are available from the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
OREGON
MARINE DEBRIS COLLECTION AND RECYCLING PROGRAM
BY FRAN RECHT
PURPOSE
This program worked with west coast ports and the fishing community to
assure awareness of the marine debris problem and applicable laws. The
program worked with ports to assure the provision of convenient refuse
collection facilities and the initiation of recycling efforts.
BACKGROUND
handling efficiency and recycling resulted in an overall reduction in port
refuse costs. Due to this project's success the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission (PSMFC) encouraged fishermen's involvement and guided the
establishment of recycling efforts in other ports between 1988 and 1990. At
least 20 west coast ports now have on-going recycling programs.
KEY PLAYERS
A year and a half pilot program was con-
ducted in the Port of Newport, Oregon (from
1987-1988) in an effort to understand the
means by which compliance with the antici-
pated marine debris laws could be accom-
plished in a fishing port. This program in-
volved an advisory committee made up of
commercial'and recreational fishing inter-
ests, the port and marina operators, the refuse
company, Coast Guard and state and local
enforcement officers, Sea Grant extension
agents, a teacher and other community mem-
bers. Fishermen's involvement in the pro-
gram lead to peer pressure, industry pride, and
competition to bring back all their refuse. The port provided additional refuse
containers, recycling bins and a convenient recycling barge for cardboard,
metal, wood, and nets the large bulky items that otherwise would have
increased port refuse costs. These items were either recycled (metal and
cardboard) or offered to the community for re-use (nets and wood). A
promotional campaign utilizing the slogan "Don't Teach Your Trash To
Swim!" and the logo of a fish caught in a six pack ring (which has since been
used nationwide) was initiated. Though these efforts resulted in a large
increase in the garbage being returned to port, increased attention to pott refuse
A year and a half pilot program
was conducted in the Port of New-
port, Oregon in an effort to under-
stand the means by which compli-
ance with the anticipated marine
debris laws could be accomplished
in a fishing port.
National Marine Fisheries Service provided funding for the pilot project and
for follow-up efforts in other ports. Exten-
sion agents working with Oregon Sea Grant
and a local area fisherman, Barry Fisher,
helped initiate the project. These people
and a committed steering committee pro-
vided guidance throughout. The willing-
ness of the harbormaster and employees at
the Port of Newport to experiment with
recycling was critical. Their success and
pride in their efforts led to a willingness to
relate their experiences to other ports. This
in turn led to the initiation of similar efforts
elsewhere. The Pacific Coast Congress of
Harbormasters and Port Managers, through
their newsletters and meetings, provided a vehicle for sharing information.
Industry support was critical too. Fishing trade publications published articles
and wrote editorials supporting fishermen's protection of the environment and
cheering their efforts at compliance. National Fisherman magazine provided
free booth space at their trade shows to promote the marine debris clean-up
effort.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
MARINE DEBRIS
FISHERIES
METHODOLOGY
Worked with the ports to assure their awareness of the laws and their
responsibility to provide convenient refuse containers. Urged the placement
of refuse collection containers at the head of each dock access ramp or as near
the boats as possible. Encouraged recycling as a way to increase the services
available to fishermert and to lower recycling costs. Tried to assure that the
recycling program could fit in with established recycling collection programs
in the community. Employed the assistance of respected fishing industry
leaders to help generate industry pride in being environmentally responsible
and to encourage fishermen's cooperation with port recycling efforts. Used
articles and mailings to inform fishermen of the laws, the reasons for the
concern about marine debris, to provide placards and sample waste manage-
ment plans to facilitate compliance, and to promote the good workings of the
various port and fishermen efforts.
LESSONS LEARNED
Convenience of facilities and peer pressure are essential. Organizing an
advisory group to set up a port recycling and education program provides the
needed focus to accomplish goals, generates a cooperative spirit, and makes
the effort fun. The program works best and continuity is most assured if it can
be tied into other community recycling efforts and programs. Even if items
can't be recycled many items can be re-used by others. For example, nets are
in great demand for decoration, baseball backstops, and gardening while
fishing "troll" line wire makes great picture frame hanging wire, and wood can
be provided for home heating. Fishermen like the recycling bins too because
they often find items that are useful when they are making boat repairs. It is
necessary to work closely with the fishing industry to assure awareness of and
support for the program and cooperation with port efforts. Ports and the
recyclers have to be a little patient with the bins at first, forthey may not be kept
well-sorted and garbage-free, but continual efforts between all will pay off.
RELATED MATERIALS
A videotape called Port of Newport Marine Debris Project, a report entitled:
"Report on a Port -Based Project to End Marine Debris" and a guidebook for
others entitled: "MARPOL Annex V, A Reference Guide For Ports," are
available from NOAA's Marine Debris Information Office, c/o CMC, 1725
DeSales St. N W.Washington, DC 20036. 202-429-5609. A list of ports and
their recycling efforts is available from Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission, P.O. Box 221, Depoe Bay, OR 97341.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
FISHERMEN PROMOTE HABITAT EDUCATION AND PROTECTION
FRAN RECHT
PURPOSE
The F.I.S.H. Habitat Education Program involves fishermen nationwide in
efforts to educate their peers, school children, and the public at large about the
habitat problems facing coastal fish and what can be done to curtail this loss.
This program provides, to interested fishermen and others, written materials,
videotapes, displays, and information focusing in on the values of wetlands to
fish, water pollution, pollution prevention, and the problems caused by water
diversions and dams.
BACKGROUND
The concept for this program was initiated
during Earth Week 1990, when it was recog-
nized that fishermen, though concerned over
habitat loss, did not often participate in such
events and did little to make others aware of
the need to protect habitat for fish. In ap-
proaching various fishing groups, eagerness
was expressed in having outreach materials
and information available to their members,
but these groups had little time to develop the
same. The program seeks and makes avail-
able existing resources, develops new materi-
als where needed, and works to inform fisher-
men about habitat problems, the availability of these resources, and the need
for their involvement. Pollution prevention efforts encourage fishermen to
work with their ports and fuel docks to curtail vessel related sources of
pollution and to promote the Spills Aren't Slick! oil spill prevention education
campaign. The program also seeks to bring the environmental community and
the fishing community together to work towards common habitat aims.
Cooperative work on educational and habitat protection and restoration efforts
is encouraged. This program is grant supported, with most money providing
for staff time for two employees to conduct outreach efforts and to produce and
distribute educational packets, videos and other materials.
KEY PLAYERS
Donations from individual fishermen and the fishing industry-including
National Fisherman, Harbor Seafoods, National Fisheries Institute, Pacific
Coast Fishermen's Wives Coalition, Pacific Coast Coalition of Fishermen's
Associations, as well as grants from Na-
tional Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Sport
F$h Restoration Program, Northwest Pol-
lution Prevention Research Center, Packard
Foundation, World Wildlife Fund and oth-
ers fund this work. Small oil spill preven-
tion efforts have been coordinated with
WA Dept of Ecology, WA Sea Grant, Or-
egon Dept. of Environmental Quality, CA
Dept of Fish and Game, British Columbia
Environment, & the B.C./States Oil Spill
Task Force. The Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission has initiated a simi-
lar program with the Gul f states expected to
follow.
The concept for this program was
initiated during Earth Week 1990,
when it was recognized that fisher-
men, though concerned over habi-
tat loss, did not often participate in
such events and did little to make
others aware of the need to protect
habitat for fish.
METHODOLOGY
Meetings with fishermen in coastal communities, presentations to fishing
groups at their meetings, displays at sport and commercial fishing trade shows,
and mailings and phone calls are used to communicate with fishermen in the
region. Information packets and videotapes concerning habitat problems and
remedies are provided to fishermen and educators and a periodic "habitat
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
PUBLIC OUTREACH
FISHERIES
hotline" newsletter keeps fishermen and conservation groups current on issues
affecting fish habitat. The program also initiated efforts to help coordinate the
activities of the region's state and provincial agencies towards promoting a
common Spills Aren't Slick! oil spill prevention education program for
fishermen and boaters and to establish a uniform and easy-to-remember oil
spill reporting number for the west coast of N. America (1-800-OILS-911).
LESSONS LEARNED
1. An "outsider" may be more successful than a local person (if that person is
perceived as coming from one interest group or another) in convening a
habitat meeting that involves many sport, commercial, environmental
interests. These meetings stimulate local cooperation and network
building and are perceived as valuable.
i
2. A regional fishing group can also provide the needed push and distance to
bring the various state agencies together for common* aims; agencies
which otherwise might tend to have more "turf" problems.
3. Fishermen and their groups will use the educational materials if provided
and will seek these materials out when they are organizing harbor festi-
vals, free fishing days, or other such events.
4. Fishing groups and community groups often do not think of contacting each
other when organizing clean-ups, wetlands walks or other such aware-
ness building events. Many community groups do not know how to reach
interested fishermen because many fishermen are not affiliated with any
organized group. A list of fishing group contacts can be provided to
others. Little effort is now being exerted to build these coalitions, but
given the pace of coastal population growth and the impact on land and
water resources in the area, such collaboration is essential.
5. A pollution prevention effort, which encourages individuals to curtail their
own contribution towater quality problems encourages people to act by
outlining tangible steps to take.
RELATED MATERIALS
A brochure, newsletters, and flyers describe program efforts in more depth.,
Educational materials about coastal habitat problems and pollution preven-
tion are available. Write Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 45 SE
82nd Drive, Gladstone, OR 97207-2522.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
MARINE SANCTUARY WATCH
BY LAURA MCSHANE
PURPOSE
Save Our Shores (SOS) has initiated Sanctuary Watch to educate people about
the resources and regulations of the newly-designated Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) and to provide a toll-free number to report
sightings of suspected threats to the Sanctuary. We, in turn, communicate this
information to Sanctuary management and to the appropriate enforcement
agencies.
Marine Sanctuary Watch was created as a way to ensure that the MBNMS,
which is underfunded and understaffed, is truly a sanctuary and not just lines
on a map. It is our hope that through this community awareness program, we
can teach people about the delicate marine ecosystem and how they can act to
protect it.
The Sanctuary Watch Project has three objectives:.
1. To serve as the principal watchdog of the Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary
2. To ensure that modifications of sanctuary regulations occur with full public
scrutiny
3. To form a national coalition of organizations working to secure the level of
government funding necessary for a thriving nationwide marine sanctu-
aries system.
BACKGROUND
With ten sanctuaries in existence and more planned, the National Marine
Sanctuary Program is currently under-funded. Funding for the MBNMS,
therefore, is woefully inadequate. As a result, the Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary will be able to afford only one enforcement officer, one
Sanctuary Manager, and one assistant to regulate an ocean area of 4,024 square
nautical miles. Clearly some measure of supplemental violation reporting will
be necessary to maintain the integrity of the Sanctuary. In the summer of 1992,
prior to the designation of the Sanctuary, SOS began laying the groundwork
for Sanctuary Watch, which began in October, 1992. This was accomplished
through the work of Dan Haifley, then Executive Director of SOS, and many
volunteers, and involved communicating with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), local governments, and other conser-
vation groups. Costs for the program in its first year included printing of four
thousand one-page fliers and bumper stickers, and setting up the toll-free
hotline, and were funded by a $20,000 grant from the Packard Foundation and
a $4,000 grant from the GAP Foundation. The project budget for 1993 was
$42,500.
KEY PLAYERS
Through Sanctuary Watch, SOS works with a number of government agencies
and marine conservation groups. Communications with NOAA regarding the
scope and purpose of Sanctuary Watch were necessary to avoid duplication of
effort, and ensure that any information received would go through the proper
channels. Procedures were set up to ensure information flow between SOS
and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the enforcement arm of the
Sanctuary. SOS works with other local conservation groups to disseminate
our information to their constituents. We continue to work closely with
Sanctuary management staff in Monterey, reporting incidents and analyzing
programs and regulations.
METHODOLOGY
The toll-free number and its purpose were publicized via frequent press
conferences, Public Service Announcements and other publicity. In late
September and early October, 1992, SOS scheduled fourpubb'c information
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
CITIZEN MONITORING
MARINE SANCTUARY
briefings in Half Moon Bay, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Mono Bay to
familiarize the ocean users and the public with the program and the toll-free
hotline. Once the Project began, public education continued through frequent
workshops for various organizations, and as part of a slideshow presented in
schools for grades K-12.
When a call comes in to our hotline, it is entered, with as much detail as
possible, onto our Incident Log Sheet by SOS staff or volunteers. The
information is then transmitted to the appropriate agency, depending on the
type of incident (oil spill, thrill craft, injured marine mammal, etc.). A copy
of each incident is forwarded to the Sanctuary Enforcement Officer at NMFS,
to be used in evaluating Sanctuary programs and policies. SOS is currently
developing a database to be used for incident tracking. SOS follows up when
possible to determine if enforcement was carried out, or if any further
investigation is necessary. In addition, SOS has begun recruiting volunteers
for a Marine Fleet, which will consist of citizens that use.the Sanctuary -
boaters, kayakers, surfers, and other various marine users, and is therefore
seen as a logical contact for marine issues.
LESSONS LEARNED
The success of Sanctuary Watch depends on the participation and concern of
local citizens. The key to making this happen is an effective outreach program.
SOS uses the media, the classroom, and contacts with local organizations as
a way to get the message out to the public. In addition, SOS is highly visible
in the media on various marine issues, and is therefore seen as a logical contact
for marine issues.
There were two contentious situations at the outset of this program. We
received an angry phone call from someone who felt that the purpose of
Sanctuary Watch was to encourage people to spy on others and "turn people
in." There was also a confrontation at one workshop with fishing groups who
feared, incorrectly, that their livelihood would be impacted by current Sanc-
tuary regulations. Both incidents resulted from a misunderstanding of our
program and its purpose. In the first incident, there could perhaps have been
more emphasis on the positive aspects of the program - education and
stewardship - than on the enforcement aspect. In the second situation, previous
communication with fishing organizations could have cleared up any con-
cerns regarding fishing within the Sanctuary.
One final lesson learned from our project so far is to establish a definite flow
of information to the various agencies involved in enforcement and manage-
ment of the Sanctuary. Defining the necessary players and the specific types
of information they require and having a clear chain of command at the outset
will ensure that all of the necessary steps are being taken to address problems
when they happen.
RELATED MATERIALS
The following materials are available: "Taking Care of Your Marine Sanctu-
ary", which lists Sanctuary regulations and incident reporting procedures;
Incident Log Sheet,; Bumper Sticker, "What You Can Do To Protect Your
Coast", part of classroom educational materials. Write Save Our Shores, P.O.
Box 1560, Santa Cruz, CA 95061. 408-462-5660/408-462-6070 Fax
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
CALIFORNIA
BAYKEEPER: PROTOTYPE FOR CITIZEN ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION BY MICHAEL HERZ
PURPOSE
During its first four years, Bay Keeper has mounted an exciting and important
campaign to reduce pollution of San Francisco Bay, in order to restore its
health and productivity. Since the 1970's, legislation has existed for Bay
protection, and yet water quality and wildlife habitat have suffered serious
deterioration. BayKeeperstaff and volunteers are working to stop this decline.
3) to serve as an antenna for citizen complaints and as a deterrent to illegal
activities on the Bay, and
4) to create an informed voting constituency which is aware of both the
Bay's unique value and current plight.
METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
Recently designated as part of an Interna-
tional Biosphere Reserve because of its bio-
logical diversity, San Francisco Bay is under
unprecedented pressure from oil spills, fill-
ing of wetlands, point and non-point source
pollution, dredging, and diversion of fresh-
water. Although existing legislation gives
the impression that the Bay is being ad-
equately monitored, in fact, agency budget
cuts and staff losses have meant that none of
the responsible agencies now conduct rou-
tine, on-the-water environmental enforce-
ment programs.
Although existing legislation gives
the impression that the Bay is be-
ing adequately monitored, in fact,
agency budget cuts and staff losses
have meant that none of the re-
sponsible agencies now conduct
routine, on-the-water environmen-
tal enforcement programs.
Originally modeled on New York's Hudson Riverkeeper program, Bay Keeper,
uses volunteers to patrol the Bay and its
shorelines on foot, via aircraft, and by boat to
detect violations of environmental law. In
four years, the BayKeeper has created an
outstanding record of successes, including:
Receiving more than 450 reports of pollu-
tion and illegal activities and pursuing them
to fines, abatements and other penalties;
*
Documenting a toxic dredging case which
resulted in the first federal criminal indict-
ment for an environmental crime in the Bay
Region in more than a decade;
The San Francisco BayKeeper's mission is
to protect, preserve, and enhance the resources and health of the ecosystems
and communities of the San Francisco Bay/Delta region. Specific objectives
are:
1) to monitor water quality and report pollution incidents,
Pressuring local regulatory agencies to
regulate previously unregulated areas of toxic
pollution such as the dumping of heavy-metal-laden bottom paints from
boatyards;
Uncovering agency laxness in penalizing polluters, and mounting a major
challenge which promises to change penalty practices of Bay Conservation
and Development Commission, the most important Bay protection agency.;
2) to advocate and, as necessary, institute litigation against violators, Completing a 10-week training program for40 volunteers (including classes
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
PUBLIC OUTREACH
CITIZEN MONITORING
on the gathering and analysis of water samples, hydrology, evidence
gathering, and other topics) and attracting more than 350 potential volun-
teers;
Creating heightened public awareness about the deterioration of the Bay
through stories in more than 80 magazines and newspapers, coverage on
more than 40 major media stations, and by distributing "WANTED"
posters throughout the region;
Increasing grassroots citizen involvement and awareness through provision
of a "hotline" to report pollution incidents (1-800-KEEPBAY) and publi-
cizing its availability.;
Providing advice and technical assistance to potential and existing "baykeeper"
and "riverkeeper" programs in more than 30 locations throughout the
country.
BayKeeper currently has 7 major programs. These are: ^
1. Regulatory Agency Reform
2. General Incident Response and Investigation Program
3. Water and Sediment Monitoring (Bacteria and Toxins)
4. Incident Tracking and Analysis
5. Bay Health Resources Index (Fish Contamination) Study
6. Public Education
7. Legal and Legal Clinic Development
KEY PLAYERS
Members of the Board of Directors include Bay experts, such as Alan Ramo,
a practicing attorney who is a former Legal Director for Citizens for a Better
Environment, Gregory Thomas, who heads the Natural Heritage Institute, has
taught environmental law at UCLA, and served as an attorney for the Sierra
Club in Washington and NRDC in San Francisco, and Will Sin, who is past
President of Save the Bay Association and the Sierra Cub.
BayKeeper's Executive Director and founder is Dr. Michael Herz, a research
scientist, "baywatcher" and activist for more than 20 years. Herz, who
founded Oceanic Society Chapters in four cities, served as Senior Research
Scientist at the Tiburon Romberg Center, and led the fight to prevent scuttling
of obsolete nuclear submarines off the California coast, has also served on
numerous local, state, and federal boards and advisory commissions, includ-
ing the Alaska Oil Spill Commission following the Exxon- Valdez spill.
LESSONS LEARNED
In just four years, BayKeeper has captured public attention and placed
important pressure on agencies to enforce existing environmental laws. Its
program of ongoing Bay patrols and monitoring provides an outstanding
example of the way in which citizen action can reduce environmental degra-
dation.
RELATED MATERIALS
For further information, please contact Michael Herz at San Francisco
BayKeeper, Building A, Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA 94123.
415-567-4401/415-567-9715 Fax
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
hlew YORK
TRAINING STUDENT ORGANIZERS LOCAL WATERS PROGRAM'S
LOCAL WATERS INITIATIVE (TSO-LWI) BY MICHAEL ZAMM
PURPOSE / BACKGROUND
Student groups, led by their classroom teacher and an environmental educa-
tion staff member from the Council on the Environment's TSO program, have
been working diligently to protect and maintain better water quality conditions
for New York City's urban creeks and waterways. TSO trains high school
students and some elementary, intermediate and college students to organize
environmental improvement projects in their
schools, homes and neighborhoods. Stu-
dents have been using a combination of
outreach, public education and field activi-
ties and events in order to gather support and
resources for their projects.
METHODOLOGY
One key aspect of the TSO JLWI has been the
bi-monthly monitoring of the chemical,
physical and biological characteristics of the
water. Another resource is to utilize a nearby
existing environmental grouporagency who
can help track and manage data collected
and who can supply and organize sampling
procedures and protocols. In most of our
TSO- LWI sites, we have utilized the re-
sources of the N Y/NJ Harbor Estuary Baykeeper. Another aspect of the LWI
is to promote better care and support by the local community living near the
water body. One way in which this has been accomplished is to talk about
Combined Sewer Outfalls (CSO *s) and how what gets dumped down the storm
drain sewer often ends up contaminating and polluting the water. Storm drain
stenciling has been a hands-on approach that communicates a clear message
to the public that says, "Don't Dump - This Drains to the Bay, [or Ocean, or
Another important facet of this initia-
tive is to educate the students to write
letters voicing their concern to their
local elected officials and agencies.
Some of the letters have touched on
issues which range from upgrading of
water body classifications to more trash
receptacles^ better enforcement of
existing laws, .and guard-rails to re-
duce litter and vandalism.
Creek, etc...]. These stencils have been obtained by the local Sea Grant Office
of New York State, State University of New York at Stonybrook.
Another important facet of this on-going initiative is to educate and coordinate
the students to write letters voicing their concern to their local elected officials
and agencies. Some of the letters sent in the past have touched on issues which
range from upgrading of water body classifications to more trash receptacles,
better enforcement of existing laws, and
guard-rails to reduce litter and vandalism of
the buffer areas near these water bodies.
Field trips have been provided as a means of
motivation. Students have visited nearby
wastewater treatment plants, oceanographic
research vessels and institutions and have
hosted awareness outings and clean-up ef-
forts at these different sites. During these
frequent outings, students have, in tandem
with local parks and environmental protec-
tion agencies, planted native vegetation in
order to increase shoreline stabilization and
ecological habitat diversity. They have
worked with local community, civic, scout-
ing, and other special interest groups to do
this. They have mentored other nearby school
groups with presentations and field demonstrations in order to involve
younger and older members of the public in their efforts as well.
The students have put together and sent out several "before and after" press
releases about their efforts, constructed and placed habitat boxes (bird boxes)
for local populations, hosted round table discussions within their school and
at the nearby aquarium and other marine research related facilities. Some of
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
CITIZEN MONITORING
YOUTH ACTIVITIES
these young people have even gone on to fulfill summer employment oppor-
tunities dealing with water quality by working for the City Parks or other
envi ronmental agencies or groups. They have coordinated and participated in
a training symposium held yearly to educate, further motivate and involve
young people.
KEY PLAYERS
*
Some of Council of the Environment of New York City's TSQ-LWI school
sites and water bodies involved are:
1. John Dewey High School, Brooklyn - Coney Island Creek/Bayview Beach
2. James Madison High School, Brooklyn - Gerritsen Creek/Marine Park
3. High School For Environmental Studies (HSFES), Manhattan - Murry Hill
Bay (East River)
RELATED MATERIALS
For additional information, please contact Michael Zamm or Dennis Bader at
the Council of the Environment of New York Gty, 51 Chambers Street, Room
228, New York, NY 10077. 212-788-7900/212-788-7913 Fax
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
A CITIZEN POLLUTION REPORTING SYSTEM
BY FRANK S*SHII>U=Y» PnJX
PURPOSE
Galveston Bay is greatly affected by the three and a half million people who
reside on its tributaries and near its shores. In this industrial, urbanized
watershed, numerous sources of pollution affect conditions in the estuary. The
Citizens' Pollution Reporting and Response System (CPRRS) was conceived
by the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (GBNEP) as a response to
shortcomings in the existing pollution reporting mechanisms. In Texas,
pollution response agency mandates are complex and fragmented. Prior to this
project, emergency contact numbers were narrow in scope, and reporting
pollution was overwhelming and costly (in terms of time and money) to the
average citizen. The GBNEP determined that a workable solution to these
problems should include:
A 24-hour toll-free number for citizens to report air, land, and water
pollution;
A user-friendly referral system that takes the burden of identifying and
contacting the correct agency/individual from the citizen caller,
Cooperative relationships among agencies so that response is timely and
complete, with direct contact made between the citizen and agency if
necessary;
Prompt feedback to the citizen on the disposition of the incident; and,
Unified reporting of incidents to create a single data base for use by resource
managers in solving the problems brought to light by citizens.
The project was accomplished using funds from the U.S. EPA and State of
Texas, through the Texas Water Commission.
BACKGROUND
Pollution response agency mandates in the Galveston Bay watershed are
complex and fragmented among some 20 agencies. For example, The Texas
General Land Office has jurisdiction over oil spills in coastal waters, while the
Texas Water Commission - the agency charged with the responsibility of
ensuring the water quality of the state - has jurisdiction over chemical or oil
spills on land, unless the spill is directly related to petroleum or gas explora-
tion, development, or production, in which case the Railroad Commission of
Texas has jurisdiction. Emergency contacts for pollution events have tradi-
tionally dealt with either very limited geographic areas or limited kinds of
pollution.
Fragmented jurisdictions create a hit-or-miss approach to pollution reporting
that tends to overwhelm the patience of the average citizen before the correct
agency (and sometimes correct individual) can be identified and contacted.
Experience during the project indicated that numerous calls are often required
for the right connection to be made by a citizen seeking to report a pollution
incident. It takes the response coordinator, who is knowledgeable about
agency responsibility, an average of 5.4 calls to resolve a pollution report. In
addition to the amount of time required to make a pollution report, citizens
must often make one or more long distance phone calls in order to reach the
appropriate response agency.
In addition to confusing the public, this diversity of jurisdictions results in the
lack of comprehensive data concerning where, when, what, and how much
pollution enters the Galveston Bay System. Although each agency keeps track
of incidents within its jurisdiction, there is no coordination among agencies as
to how these reports are recorded or what they contain.
KEY PLAYERS
The diverse nature of environmental regulation and incident response in Texas
made inter-agency coordination a key requirement for success of the CPRRS.
In order to ensure this coordinated effort, the GBNEP sought and obtained
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
CITIZEN MONITORING
formal Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) from several state and federal
agencies, for example:
In the'process of establishing these MOUs, the GBNEP program staff
participated in extensive meetings and communications with the agencies to
discuss the practical aspects of increased coordination of efforts. This
coordination paid off in the later administration of the program: federal, state
and local agencies have all effectively worked with the CPRRS Response
Coordinator to ensure that appropriate information is obtained from the
citizen, follow-up with the response agency is efficient, and pollution laws and
response capabilities are understood. These countless conversations have
helped to refine the referral process with each agency and have greatly
increased the efficiency of the CPRRS:
METHODOLOGY
J ^** '
Creation of the CPRRS was a five^step process:
Completion of a project development study to plan the system;
Establishment of a 24-hour "hotline" at the GBNEP Program Office for a
demonstration phase;
Development of inter-agency agreements to ensure coordination among
responding entities;
Initiation of a publicity campaign to create community awareness of the
service; and
Implementation of the response system as a permanent function of an
appropriate agency or institution.
These actions enabled citizens to report pollution incidents involving air, land
or water, with a single phone callregardless of which government agency is
involved in the response process. In using the CPRRS, the citizen reports
pollution to a Response Coordinator who then follows through with the
appropriate agencies, assuring that results get back to the citizen. In facilitat-
ing the response, the Response Coordinator also compiles information about
pollution incidents for a five-county region surrounding Galveston Bay. This
information (the only data set of its kind) further helps environmental
managers to solve problems.
LESSONS LEARNED
Five hundred and twenty-four calls were received by the CPRRS during it first
year. The most significant factor that affected monthly call frequency was
publicity. The highest call frequencies were clearly related to periods of high
media interest and directed publicity by the GBNEP. The nature of calls varied
greatly. Some were simple requests for information, many were legitimate
reports of significant environmental incidents, and some, inevitably, were
citizens who just wanted to air their general concerns. Overall, about 62
percent of the calls were referable to a response agency. Many of these calls
represented pollution incidents that would have passed unreported if it were
not for the existence of the CPRRS.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the CPRRS, two user survey polls were
conducted during the demonstration period. Each poll indicated that about
three fourths of all callers felt "very satisfied" with the service they had
received. In each case more than 95% of the system users indicated they would
use the service again, citing "one-stop shopping" and user-friendliness as
reasons. Both surveys indicated that citizens who have used the service are
overwhelmingly in favor of seeing the program continue. In developing this
program, coordination of the numerous entities posed a major challenge, but
the project has now proven extremely successful and is being permanently
implemented by the Texas Water Commission.
RELATED MATERIALS
Prince, K.P., F.S. Shipley, and M. Nelson. 1993. Citizens' Pollution Report-
ing and Response System. GBNEP Draft Final Report.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
THE GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION; THE ESTUARY SAMPLING
TEAM (GBF TEST) BY LINDA SHEAD
PURPOSE
GBFTEST (The Estuarine SamplingTeam) is the Galveston Bay Foundation's
(GBF) volunteer citizen water quality monitoring program. Based on the pilot
work developed by the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (GBNEP),
TEST now includes 31 monitors at 23 sites in Galveston Bay in the tidally
influenced portion of its tributaries. The parameters currently being measured
include dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, salinity, water clarity, and obser-
vational data.
The nature of the project is that it needs, and benefits from, the involvement
of everyone with an interest in the Bay. For the project to evolve into a program
that will be long-term and successful, GBF relies on the continued interest of
the general public, technical advice from the scientific community, and
support from monitoring agencies.
BACKGROUND AND KEY PLAYERS
As concern grows about the health of the
Galveston Bay system, there is a need to learn
more about the many variables acting on the
Bay and their impacts on waterquality. Local
water resource agencies and researchers are
working hard to learn more about the dynam-
ics of the estuarine system, but their resources
formonitoring and data gathering are limited.
In the Galveston Bay area, and all over the
nation, there is a new resource which ad-
dresses the need for more water quality data
concerned citizens who are eager to get
involved in efforts to conserve their local
waters.
The citizen monitoring program has
been a successful venture* The success
can be attributed to several factors;
The community is eager to get in-
volved; the agencies and technical
community support citizen monitoring
and are helping the program grow* A
few skeptics exist in the scientific com-
munity regarding to the value of data
collected by citizens.
Volunteer monitors conduct the tests on a
weekly basis and report the data to GBF where it is processed. The program
has two important purposes: (1) to increase the amount of water quality data
available to water resource agencies allowing them to make better resource
management decisions, and (2) to inform the monitors and general public
about water quality in Galveston Bay.
A two-yearpilotprojecton Armand Bayou began inFY1991 with $25,000 per
yeartotheTexasWaterCommissionCTWC)
from the Galveston Bay National Estuary
Program (GBNEP). The actual monitoring
component of the project was implemented
quite quickly (five months into the project)
because the program was largely adapted
from an existing volunteer monitoring pro-
gram coordinated by the Chesapeake Bay
Alliance. During the second year of the
state project, the Galveston Bay Founda-
tion had a $15,000 grant from U.S. EPA to
adapt the pilot project for a bay-wide pro-
gram. Again, the GBF project was able to
have monitors on site within 5 months of
beginning the project by using the Armand
Bayou program as a base. By the third year
of citizen monitoring in the Galveston Bay
area, GBF had 19 monitors at 15 sites, and GBNEP had 9 monitors at 6 sites
on Armand Bayou. GBF provided $28,000 for GBF to coordinate and expand
to a bay-wide program, including incorporating the Armand Bayou monitors
into GBF TEST.
Several agencies and organizations are involved in this program on a variety
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
CITIZEN MONITORING
of levels. The EPA has served an important role by assisting with program
design and approving the project plan so that data users can be assured of the
data's quality. The TWC has provided logistical support for citizen monitor-
ing programs throughout Texas, and has established a division within TWC to
continue to guide and support volunteer monitors throughout Texas. Other
agencies (e.g., Texas Parks and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) and industry serve an important role by providing technical advice.
METHODOLOGY
The goal of the citizen monitoring program is to produce accurate water
quality data. To achieve this goal, it is vital to be thoroughly quality-oriented
in the program design. The first year of GBNEP's Armand Bayou project was
dedicated to designing a pilot project for the program, including how to recruit
and train volunteers; which parameters would be useful in determining water
quality; which testing methods would be appropriate, i.e., reliable, easy for
volunteers to implement, and cost-effective; and how to ensure that data would
be of the necessary quality. Assurance of quality data is especially important:
If agencies are to use data to determine water quality, the data have to be
reliable, meeting the same EPA standards as any approved laboratory would.
By the second year of GBNEP'S pilot project and during the first year of GBF
TEST, monitors were collecting data at their sites, and work continued on the
refinement and implementation of the procedures for training and Quality
Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC).
LESSONS LEARNED
To date, the citizen monitoring program has been a successful venture. The
success can be attributed to several factors: (1) The community has been very
responsive and is eager to get involved, and (2) the agencies and technical
community have demonstrated great support for citizen monitoring and are
helping the program continue to grow. A few skeptics exist in the scientific
community regarding to the value of data collected by citizens. GBF will
continue to consistently implement QA/QC measures, and over time the direct
comparison of citizens' data with agency data will show the accuracy and
precision of the volunteers' work.
To other groups interested in implementing a similar program, GBF offers the
following suggestions: (1) There are existing monitoring groups for every
kind of water. Build on what they have done, and don't try to re-invent the
wheel. (2) Begin work early on the data management aspect of your program
because it is important to analyze and use the data being collected by the
volunteers.
Overall, this is a valuable project. It produces important water quality data,
and provides a means for Galveston Bay area residents and monitoring
agencies to work together toward the common goal of protecting the precious
Galveston Bay estuary.
RELATED MATERIALS
For further information, please contact Linda Shead at the Galveston Bay
Foundation, 17324-A Highway 3, Webster, TX 77598.
/Tr3432-3381/713-332-3153 Fax
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
CONCERNED CITIZENS PROTECING THE COOUIUE RIVER AND ESTUARY
BY RAM BLAKE AND KRYSTYNA WOLNIAKOWSKI
PURPOSE
The Coquille River (Oregon) and Estuary Near Coastal Water Pilot Project
provides a dynamic example of what a little forethought, a lot of cooperation,
an a vested interest in preserving a community's natural resources can do for
the environment and for those who depend on its health. The Coquille Project
reflects a successful demonstration of political, community, and scientific
efforts to protect our nation's coastal resources.
BACKGROUND
The Coquille Project has derived its recent success from many areas. First, and
perhaps most importantly, members of the project team worked hard to
respond to the concerns of local citizens whose initial outlook on State and
Federal involvement in the Project was characterized in large part by fear of
overregulation without local input. As a result of these efforts, however, the
project team was able to elicit a positive change in public perception.
In turn, this change in public perception resulted in even greater public
involvement, which has lasted throughout the duration of the project and
should continue in the future. The citizens of the Coquille community, having
an obvious interest in preserving the environmental and economic well-being
of the place they call home, took the project to heart. Through the Coquille
Community Advisory Committee (CCAC), they have cooperated substan-
tially and effectively with representatives of the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), including collecting and analyzing monitor-
ing data, developing action plans for environmental projects, anct determining
policy guidelines for recreational, commercial, and industrial activity within
the Coquille system. -
Through all the extensive cooperation and involvement by different parties
and officials of the Coquille Project team, many tangible results have begun
to surface. The CCAC launched five local water quality initiatives ranging
from wetland reconstruction to streambank erosion stabilization efforts. In
turn, there has been some evidence that environmental improvements have
recently emerged.
Coquille residents and Oregon officials wasted no time in launching the
Coquille Bay Pilot Project. First, the Oregon DEQ began to monitor water
quality in the Coquille system. Despite various local initiatives, monitoring
results still showed an increase in water quality problems. Armed with this
initial base of raw data, DEQ and EPA launched the official Coquille study and
pulled together a local community coalition. Expectedly, local people feared
increased regulation and steep costs as a result of the project. Commercial
businesses and industries in the Coquille area assumed that State and Federal
officials would impose tight controls on the community as a price for funds to
protect the system. This fear would have to be overcome in order for the team
to reach its goals. Only then could EPA, DEQ, and local citizens begin to work
together to protect this precious estuary, filled with resources vital to and
prized by the residents of the community.
METHODOLOGY
The Action Plan for Oregon Estuary and Ocean Water proposed a statewide
management framework for protecting the environmental quality of Oregon's
coastal waters. This project would complement the planning activities
required under the 1987 Oregon Ocean Resources Management Act and
existing regulations such as the Coastal Zone Management Act. To develop
and refine an approach for all Oregon coastal waters, DEQ would assess the
problems and investigate management strategies for one estuary and then
move on to others. The Coquille River Estuary was selected because it
encompassed a variety of problems representative of other Oregon estuaries.
Studies that would be conducted in the Coquille Estuary included:
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Synthesizing existing data on environmental conditions to better character-
ize water quality and biological conditions and identify trends;
Evaluating the effects of relocating the Bandon STP outfall from environ-
mentally sensitive tideflats to deeper water,
Documenting wetland resources and investigating the feasibility of wetland
restoration projects;
Evaluating the role woody debris plays in protecting fish habitat in naviga-
tion channels, and designing alternative methods for improving that
habitat; and
Conducting appropriate water quality and sediment sampling to modify
best management practices to minimize toxicants and nonpoint pollutants.
KEY PLAYERS
**
Critical to the ultimate success of the Project, DEQ officials recognized the
importance in involving citizens and transforming public perception into a
positive outlook. Consequently, DEQ formed the CCAC, selecting 31
members representative of local interests ranging from cranberry growers to
dairymen. Their selection to the committee helped guarantee the project's
success, in that these representatives effectively took ownership of the
projects, problems, and results. Meeting monthly for three years, the commit-
tee studied various topics and discussed the issues which would impact their
own lives as well as those of living resources within the estuary.
These efforts resulted in the development of a local workplan to improve the
environmental quality of the Coquille system. The first major element of the
workplan focused on monitoring the water quality of the system. The project
team took test samples from the headwaters of the system to the mouth of the
estuary. DEQ studied the Coquille system for two years intensively, measur-
ing the following parameters: temperature; nutrient, bacteria, and dissolved
oxygen levels; the health of the biological community; suspended particles;
and toxics.
LESSONS LEARNED
After a significant amount of monitoring data had been collected, the CCAC
made a number of determinations. First, they concluded that summertime
dissolved oxygen levels may be too low to adequately support aquatic life.
Secondly, the data suggested that currently high levels of fecal coliform and
bacteria may pose a threat to public health. Thirdly, the CCAC recognized that
the designs of sewage treatment plants at Coquille and Myrtle point, built in
1950, had become obsolete; in turn, the plants were the primary sources of the
estuary's dissolved oxygen problem. Finally, they reasoned that nonpoint
source runoff from farmlands and overloaded sewage treatment plants had led
to the increase in the bacteria level.
The Near Coastal Waters Pilot Project was an extensive effort that really
served as only the beginning of a new program for Oregon's coastal waters.
The various components helped both public officials and private citizens
understand the Coquille River and Estuary more thoroughly and assisted other
agencies by providing data to them for their programs. DEQ and other state
and federal agencies have already indicated that they are looking forward to
continuing the effort to build on the experience and knowledge gained in this
pilot project.
RELATED MATERIALS
For further information, please contact Pam Blake at the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, 340 North Front Street, Coos Bay, OR 97420.
503-269-2721
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
CHOLLAS CREEK WATERSHED PROTECTION PROJECT
BY LAURA HUNTER
PURPOSE
The goal of the Chollas Creek (California) Watershed Protection Project was
to measurably improve the quality of water entering San Diego Bay from its
watershed and to provide a model protection plan which could be adapted to
other watersheds. To reach this goal the following objectives were estab-
lished.
Increase community awareness of:
1. the nature and importance of a watershed;
2. the connection between the community and the receiving waters down-
stream;
3. the nature of nonpoint source pollution: the types of pollutants, the possible
sources, arid the hazards;
4. proper disposal options available for household hazardous waste, small
generator wastes, and industrial wastes;
5. techniques to reduce the use of hazardous materials in the home and the
workplace; and to:
6. increase community pride and create a sense of belonging to the watershed;
7. develop materials which can be easily modified or duplicated for other
watersheds.
BACKGROUND
The goals of the Chollas Creek Watershed Protection Project were aligned
with the goal of Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) - to reduce pollution
and environmental degradation caused by toxic chemicals. EHC was ideally
suited to address watershed and storm water pollution issues for a variety of
reasons. Prior to the beginning of the project, EHC had:
1. Expertise in the problems caused by the use and disposal of hazardous
materials
2. Pre-existing base of support in the target community
3. Existing pesticide use reduction campaign
4. Existing San Diego Bay protection campaign
5. Existing safer substitutes and household hazardous materials programs and
educational materials
6. Served as Community Education Contractor for the San Diego Regional
Household Hazardous Material Program
7. Education and product specialists on staff
8. Expertise in Right-to-Know process and legislation
As a result, the project could capitalize on all of EHC's existing resources by
integrating various elements of our programs. In the same way that a
watershed connects all activities and land areas within it, the watershed
protection program provided a link among all of EHC's toxics use and source
reduction programs. We also heavily utilized community members and
donations from local businesses. The total cost of the project in the first year
was $129,000. This project was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency through the California State Water Resources Control Board with
funds from the Storm Water Management Program (Section 319) and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, the City
of San Diego, and The Nathan Cummings Foundation.
KEY PLAYERS
Representatives from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, County
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
WATER OUAUTV
Health Department, area schools, parent teacher organizations, and parents
were all involved in the project. A Citizen Advisory Committee was
established with members from educational institutions, community mem-
bers, elected officials, and regulatory agencies to advise EHC on the imple-
mentation and progress of the Project.
METHODOLOGY
EHC developed a strategy for this demonstration project that was highly
localized and had a strong emphasis on community education. We also
capitalized on EHC's expertise and involvement in other programs such as the
San Diego County Household Hazardous Materials Program, and EHC's own
Clean Bay, Pesticide Use Reduction, and Toxic Free Neighborhoods Cam-
paigns. We actively involved community members in developing and
implementing the plan. By soliciting input of community organizations at the
onset of the project, they were involved in the development and review of the
printed materials and plans for structural changes that would reduce pollutants
and, at the same time, enhance community recreational resourc.es. Through
the involvement of community organizations based in the Chollas Creek
Watershed, we attempted to reach each of the approximately 80,000 persons
living in the watershed through direct mailings, student activities, community
fairs, and business cooperation programs. We developed a variety of materi-
als:
1. Watershed Protection Calendar with children's art and monthly informa-
tion on reducing nonpoint source pollution
2. Watershed Protection Kit for school use
3. Watershed Protection fact sheets
4. Watershed Poster
5. BMP manual for incidental users of toxic materials
6. BMP plan for an area cemetery
7. Watershed Protection window decals and stickers
8. Classroom activities
9. Site specific structural improvements plan for a site within the watershed
10. Bilingual materials
11. Urban Runoff Media Packet
12. Watershed Poster Contest
13. Installed watershed protection signs in the area.
We also held news conferences and wrote articles on related subjects for local
newsletters and incorporated information on NPS in our annual fundraising
run - the Clean Bay 10K. In-service training, as well as public and classroom
presentations were all part of our public outreach.
RELATED MATERIALS
A complete report of the first year of the project is available in our 100-page
report "How to Create a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Campaign". This
document contains samples of all products and a discussion of lessons learned
and recommendations for future watershed protection campaigns.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
-------
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR RECYCLING WASTEWATER THROUGH HYDROLOGI-
CALLY ALTERED WETLANDS BY ANDREE M. BREAUX AND JOHN W. DAY
PURPOSE
The two major environmental problems that currently most affect Louisiana
are a high rate of coastal wetland loss and high levels of surface water
pollution. The application of secondarily treated wastewater to wetlands is
proposed as a means of dealing with these problems. The benefits of wetland
wastewater treatment include improved surface water quality, increased
accretion rates to balance subsidence, im-
proved plant productivity, and decreased
capital outlays for conventional treatment
systems.
Wetland treatment systems can be de-
signed and operated to restore d^teriorat-
ing wetlands to previous levels of produc-
tivity. Hydrologically altered wetlands in
the Louisiana coastal zone have been se-
lected as appropriate for receiving munici-
pal'and some types of industrial effluent.
BACKGROUND
METHODOLOGY
Criteria were developed for selecting both appropriate industries as discharg-
ers to wetlands and appropriate receiving wetlands. Industries were chosen
based on the biodegradable nature of their effluent, on their current discharge
into polluted surface water bodies, and on their proximity to wetlands.
Wetlands were selected based on an absence of priority uses, on the degree of
isolation and hydrologic alteration, on
a size large enough to accommodate
conservative hydraulic loading rates
and provide back-up receiving wet-
lands, on the rate of subsidence to en-
sure permanent burial of nutrients, and
on the presence of spoil banks, or simi-
lar features, that could provide gradi-
ents suitable for nutrient removal.
The authors' hypothesis is that wetlands
improve water quality and that added sedi*
ments and nutrients will benefit subsiding
wetlands. Maintaining coastal wetlands will
prevent the loss, not only of'waterpurifica-
tion functions, but also of flood control
benefits, wildlife habitat and diversity, direct
economic use, education, and research.
While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined that wetland
wastewater treatment is effective in processing municipal effluent, it has
discouraged the use of natural wetlands for this purpose. As a result,
hydrologically altered wetlands in the Louisiana coastal zone are being
neglected and ultimately lost while scarce funds are being applied to the
construction of artificial wetlands to treat municipal effluent. Effluent
discharge to existing .wetlands can be incorporated into a comprehensive
management plan, similar in scope and objective to river diversion projects,
designed to increase sediment and nutrient input into subsiding wetlands in the
Louisiana coastal zone.
To illustrate the potential for second-
arily treated effluent to enhance de-
graded wetlands, three case studies are
presented, including one food proces-
sor and two municipalities. The food
processor produces potato chips and has been discharging its secondarily
treated effluent to a partially impounded forested wetland for the past seven
years. The impoundment appears to have led to the deterioration of one
segment of the forest, although not adversely affecting an adjacent segment.
Results of field studies indicate that nutrient levels in the effluent decreased
with passage through the wetland and that the effluent has filled in the open
water area and encouraged the replacement of former-but-dying woody
vegetation with young woody vegetation.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
WASTEWAT£R TREATMENT
The second case study involves the City of Thibodaux, Louisiana, where a
cypress-tupelo swamp of low productivity receives secondarily treated efflu-
ent from a population of about 17,000 people. A baseline study was carried
out for two years, measuring primary components of the ecosystem before
effluent application began in March of 1992. Preliminary data indicates mean
reductions in nitrate of 98%, and 44% in phosphate, from the effluent pipe to
the wetland discharge point approximately 1,600 meters away.
The third wetland wastewater treatment study is being conducted at a site
receiving municipal effluent from the town of Breaux Bridge, Louisiana,
population 6,000, for almost 40 years. No visible stress is evident from the
vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the current discharge pipe. A two-year
study will analyze the productivity of the vegetation and compare it to other
cypress-tupelo swamps in the southeastern United States. Parameters to be
measured include stem growth, litterfall, herbaceous biomass, water and soil
nutrient levels, benthos; and nekton.
LESSONS LEARNED
Wetland treatment systems, such as the three described above, can be estab-
lished in hydrologically altered areas as experimental systems designed to
imitate the critical functions of previously healthy wetlands nourished rou-
tinely by sediments and nutrients. In attempting to replace wetlands, whether
they were lost due to human alterations of the environment or naturally-
occurring subsidence, the addition of sediments and nutrients to wetlands
through effluent application constitutes a form of wetland restoration. The
authors' basic hypothesis is that wetlands improve water quality and that
added sediments and nutrients will benefit subsiding wetlands. Maintaining
coastal wetlands will prevent the loss, not only of water purification functions,
but also of flood control benefits, wildlife habitat and diversity, direct
economic use, education, and research.
RELATED MATERIALS
For additional materials, please contact Andree Breaux or John Day, students
at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. 214-655-6692/214-
655-6689 Fax
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WASHINGTON COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
DOUGLAS J. CANNING
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Washington Coastal Erosion ManagementStrategy (CEMS)
project is to develop and provide local government with guidance on erosion
management for Puget Sound shorelines including engineering and geotechnical
standards, environmental impact assessment, site-specific regulatory alterna-
tives, and regional management alternatives. The guidance is to be imple-
mented through local Shoreline Master Programs as mandated by a 1991
legislative amendment to the Washington Shoreline Management Act.
BACKGROUND
In 1991, three local governments requested that the Washington Department
of Ecology (Ecology) investigate the effects of wide-spread shoreline armoring
and prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement on the cumula-
tive effects of bulkheading and other forms of armoring. These elected
officials were reacting to the large numbers of bulkhead permit applications
in recent years, and were voicing concern over their uncertainty about the
wisdom of permitting large scale unmitigated shoreline armoring.
In an action unrelated to the local government requests, the Washington State
Legislature in 1992 passed Engrossed Senate Bill 6128 amending the Shore-
line Management Act to require that local governments adopt erosion manage-
ment standards in their Shoreline Master Programs. These Master Programs
address both structural and non-structural methods of erosion management.
The standards must give a preference for permitting of erosion protection
measures for residences occupied prior to January 1,1992 where the erosion
protection measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural
environment.
The legislature was unable to provide local governments or Ecology with the
funds necessary to carry out the intents of ESB 6128 because of reduced tax
revenues. Fortuitously, Shorelands was successful in obtaining a grant of
funds under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act section 309 program
to carry out the CEMS project. The 3-year grant of $370,000 (primarily for
consulting services) was supplemented by two staff each working about
halftime on the project.
KEY PLAYERS
The lead agency is the Washington Department of Ecology's Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program. An informal advisory committee in-
cludes representation from the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington Department of Fisheries, and local government
planning agencies, plus coastal construction contractors and shoreline prop-
erty owners. The principal consulting team is composed of CH2M Hill
Northwest and Battelle Memorial Laboratories Human Affairs Research
Centers and Sequim Marine Laboratory.
METHODOLOGY
Task 1. Inventory and Characterization of Shoreline Armoring, Thurston
County, Washington, 1977 -1993. This study provides quantitative estimates
of the rate and character of shoreline armoring which are not readily available
for most of Puget Sound.
Task 2. Engineering and Geotechnical Standards for Shoreline Protection in
Puget Sound. The generally accepted engineering and geotechnical standards
for selected erosion management alternatives (bulkheading, rip rap, beach
nourishment, no action, etc.) appropriate to the tidal range, wave energy, and
geologic conditions characteristic of Puget Sound are assessed.
Task 3. Shoreline Armoring Effects on Physical Coastal Processes in Puget
Sound. The key assumptions and questions about the effects of shoreline
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
COASTAL EROSION
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
armoring on coastal processes are evaluated based on the technical literature,
and sensitized to Puget Sound conditions. Selected local case examples are
provided.
Task 4. Coastal Erosion Management Regulation: Case Examples and Criti-
cal Evaluation. Regulatory approaches to coastal erosion management in
Puget Sound and other states are evaluated, and policy alternatives for
Washington are assessed.
Task 5. Shoreline Armoring Effects on Biological Resources and Coastal
Ecology in Puget Sound. Following on from Task 3, the direct effects of
shoreline armoring and the secondary effects of changes to coastal processes
and conditions upon biological resources are assessed. Selected local case
examples are provided. j .
Task 6. Coastal Bluff Management Alternatives for Puget.Sound. A large
measure of bulkheading is in reaction to slope failures, riot shoreline erosion
per se. Slope instability is caused by a combination of inherent geologic
weaknesses, ground water loading, and toe erosion. Following on from Task
4, this task addresses coastal bluff management alternatives.
Task 7. Regional Approaches to Coastal Erosion Management. Traditionally,
shoreline management and erosion control permitting has been on a case-by-
case basis. Many soft approaches to erosion management (e.g., beach
nourishment) or mitigation for adverse effects must be carried out on a
regional basis to be effective. Following on fromTasks 4 and 6, this task
addresses both the technical and political feasibility of regional erosion
management.
Task 8. Study program integration: Programmatic Environmental Impact
Assessment This task will integrate the special study reports into a program-
matic environmental impact assessment
Task 9. Coastal Erosion Management Recommendations for Puget Sound.
Based largely on the foregoing studies, this task will formulate specific model
elements which can be recommended as amendments to local Shoreline
Master Programs.
Tasks 1 - 4 were carried out in 1992-93. Tasks 5 - 7 will be completed in 1993-
94, and Tasks 8 and 9 in 1994-95. Local governments will amend Shoreline
Master Programs in 1995-96.
LESSONS LEARNED
CEMS was aided by frequent informal and semi-formal contact between
project staff and members of the advisory committee. Typical of complex and
potentially contentious issues involving private property issues and public
resource management mandates, constant attention to the concerns and
perceptions of key players and the affected public was necessary.
RELATED MATERIALS
Write or FAX a request for the current CEMS mail order form for currently
available project reports or to receive the CEMS Project newsletter. Shoreiands
and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecol-
ogy, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia WA, 98504-7600. 206-459-6785/206-438-
7537 Fax
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
Nsvy JERSEY
THE SEWAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ACT PROGRAM
BY LAURIE SANDS
BACKGROUND / PURPOSE
The New Jersey Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program, a summer beach
monitoring program, concluded that stormwater runoff is the principal source
of bacterial contamination causing beach closings in New Jersey. Approxi-
mately 80% of all beach closings in New Jersey are attributed to elevated
levels of bacteria found in stormwater discharges during and after storm
events. In an attempt to address these problems, the New Jersey State
Legislature adopted the Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act (SIIA) ,
N.J.S.A. 58:25-23 et seq., in August of 1988. The SIIA furnishes a vehicle for
public entities to begin to locate and correct pollution problems plaguing the
coast of New Jersey. Under the SIIA, 94 municipalities in Monmouth, Ocean,
Atlantic and Cape May counties are required to map their stormwater and
sanitary sewer system, locate and correct any interconnections or cross-
connections between the stormwater and sanitary sewer systems, perform
quarterly monitoring of all outfalls that discharge to salt waters and abate
nonpoint sources of pollution entering surface waters.
KEY PLAYERS
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (the
Department) was charged with the responsibility of implementing the SIIA.
As a result of the extensiveness of the mapping and monitoring requirements,
the Department approached SIIA implementation in a phased manner.
METHODOLOGY
Phase I:
Phase I was designed to give municipalities a better understanding of their
stormwater sewer system. Under Phase I, municipalities were required to
locate all stormwater outfalls and stormwater management facilities. Munici-
palities were also required to provide information about the outfalls and
stormwater management basins including size, type and land use draining to
pipes and basins. In addition, municipalities inventoried all studies, reports
and other relevant information on their stormwater and sanitary sewer sys-
tems. The Department allocated $1.045 million to Phase I which is now
complete.
Phase H: '
' ;1
Municipalities are now working on Phase II of the SIIA. Approximately $6
million has been allocated for this process. In Phase II, coastal municipalities
are (1) mapping their stormwater and sanitary sewer systems, (2) performing
investigative bacterial sampling to identify interconnections and cross-
connections between the stormwater and sanitary sewer systems and (3)
beginning quarterly monitoring. More specifically, Phase II maps include
stormwater and previously mapped sanitary sewer lines, stormwater appurte-
nances, all sanitary manholes, recycling facilities, industrial facilities, hazard-
ous waste facilities, solid waste facilities and areas serviced by septic systems.
To ensure mapping quality, municipalities are required to use base maps that
meet national map accuracy standards. All features placed on the map must
be accurate to within 10 feet of its actual location. Municipalities are required
to supply information on how they accomplished the mapping. This will
provide insights into methods that may be utilized to perform similar mapping
in the future. Unfortunately, the Department did not require that mapping be
generated digitally. Even though a majority of the mapping is being completed
digitally, some are being produced manually. For digital products, the
Department will be able to convert the information into the GIS. The
Department is working with the counties to recruit their assistance in transfer-
ring manual mapping into the GIS. In the future, digital maps will be
requested.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
To locate interconnections and cross-connections between stoimwater and
sanitary sewer systems, bacterial sampling of the discharge of all stoimwater
outfalls must be conducted. Due to the lack of standards for stoimwater
discharges, the Department is using New Jersey's ambient Surface Water
Quality Standards, N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.1 et seq., to trigger an investigation of the
system to locate potential problems. The Department recognizes that ambient
standards are low for stormwater discharges, and in many cases, sample
analysis will* indicate an exceedance of the standards thereby requiring an
investigation of the system. The Department feels that this level of investiga-
tion will insure integrity of the system and allow municipalities to more readily
identify future problems. The Department will examine data collected under
Phase II of the SIIA and attempt to establish variables that can be used to
identify a problem in the system rather than using ambient Water Quality
Standards.
By late 1993, a majority of community maps were completed. The Depart-
ment has also received monitoring data and is analyzing them to provide
assistance to municipalities in establishing the intensity of investigation that
must be performed to identify and correct interconnections and cross-connec-
tions and to determine background levels of bacteria in discharges.
Phase III:
Mapping and monitoring information will be used to develop nonpoint source
control and stormwater management plans under Phase III of the SIIA. The
Department is developing rules for Phase HI and will be soliciting public input
on all stages of their development. There are $2.8 million available for
implementation of Phase III. In this stage, all affected municipalities will
receive a base grant to develop and begin to implement stormwater manage-
ment and nonpoint source control plans. In addition, certain areas in the coast
will be targeted for more intensive studies, including monitoring and modeling
to determine pollutant loads and impacts of nonpoint source pollution. Best
management practices will be implemented in targeted areas and monitoring
to evaluate effectiveness of the controls will be performed.
LESSONS LEARNED
Coordination has been a very important component to the success of the SIIA
program. Within the Department, offices involved in planning, monitoring,
financial assistance and enforcement have participated in the implementation
of this program. Each group brings an important piece to the whole. Without
the various functions working together, the accomplishments seen through the
SIIA program would not have been possible.
An obstacle to progress of the SIIA program was a lack of administrative
funding for the Department to implement the SIIA. As a result, the Depart-
ment had to rely on funding from other sources causing the SIIA to become
lower in priority than many other programs. In addition, the legislation
required the Department to provide funding only to municipalities. It would
have been more effective if the Department was able to provide funding for
counties to assist with the monitoring, data management, technical advice and
enforcement aspects of the SIIA.
New Jersey's coast is an ecologically vital resource, as well as a valuable
recreational and economic asset. Pollutant impacts caused by stormwater
runoff are a major threat to this resource. Through the SIIA, New Jersey is
implementing a comprehensive program that is a partnership of state, county
and local efforts to identify and control sources of stormwater contamination.
Furthermore, the SIIA provides a valuable framework upon which New Jersey
can build a comprehensive statewide nonpoint source and stormwater pollu-
tion control system. The knowledge gained through the implementation of the
SIIA will be a valuable tool for other coastal states facing similar problems.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WELLFLEET HARBOR MINI-BAY PROJECT
BY ELIZABETH McEvoY AND SUSAN SCHNEIDER
PURPOSE
The Wellfleet Harbor Mini-Bay Project is one of three embayment-based
environmental protection efforts sponsored by the Massachusetts Bays Pro-
gram. The project received funding in 1991 and will be supported over a five
year period ($50,000/year) to address critical water quality, habitat protection,
coastal access, and public health issues that effect the embayment.
BACKGROUND
The Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP)
established the Mini-Bays program to en-
courage communities to work coopera-
tively to protect and enhance their shared
natural resources. By providing technical
and financial support to these three projects,
the Bays Program is promoting a natural-
system based approach 19 environmental
management. The Wellfleet Harbor Mini-
Bay is one of three MBP-funded Mini-
Bays projects; the other two are Plum
Island Sound/Rivers System and the Fore
River Estuary.
resource: pathogen contamination and nutrient loading are big issues for this
harbor, especially as it effects their use of the nationally known Wellfleet
oyster.
KEY PLAYERS
Like the structure of the National Estuary Programs, the Mini-Bay projects
have management and advisory com-
mittees comprised of citizens, scien-
tists, educators, local officials, and busi-
ness people. The players each bring a
specific expertise to the program ele-
ments of research, public outreach, plan-
ning, and implementation. The pri-
mary cooperating organizations in-
volved in Wellfleet are: the Town of
Wellfleet, the Bamstable County Co-
operative Extension'System, and the
Bamstable County Health Department.
The Massachusetts Bays Program es-
tablished the Mini-Bays program to
encourage communities to work coop-
eratively to protect and enhance their
shared natural resources. By providing
technical and financial support to these
three projects, the Bays Program is pro-
moting a natural-system based ap-
proach to environmental management.
METHODOLOGY
Wellfleet Harbor is the most pristine of the
three projects. This area has been desig-
nated an "Area of Critical Environmental Concern" (ACEC), and is one of
Massachusetts' most important aquaculture sites, the location of more than
30% of the state's aquaculture grants. However, Wellfleet has experienced a
43% growth in population over the past two decades.
The project's focus is on issues that are vital to maintaining and preserving the
The Wellfleet Harbor Mini-Bay has
been using a variety of techniques to
research problem issues and educate
the public. Research efforts have in-
cluded collecting data on land use, water quality, and living resources to
estimate the loading and critical concentration of pollutants in the embayment.
For example, a nitrogen loading model developed by the Buzzards Bay Project
(a National Estuary Program), a development build-out analysis will be
coupled with information on tidal exchange (such as flushing rate, residence,
time, and volume) and estimated contributions of contaminants from the bays
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
FISHERIES
into the harbor. This information will be used to estimate the maximum
concentration of nitrogen that can be expected in the future given existing
zoning, helping to guide resource management decisions for the health of the
embayment.
Another innovative technique involves studies of the diversity, abundance,
and distribution of fmfish, shellfish, and vegetation. With a 50 foot seine, a
catch of fish-is gathered to estimate populations and species composition of
finfish. But rather than pulling it in and risking high mortality rates of the fish,
researchers are photographing the sample in large format film, and counting
the species on the photograph.
Public involvement has and continues to be an important element of the
project: in order to successfully implement the management plan, public
support will be needed. Shoreline walks and workshops are held frequently,
and a resource library and newsletters are just two of the.,many outreach
efforts.
LESSONS LEARNED
*v
Since the project is only in its second year, many specific conclusions are still
under investigation. However, a very important lesson learned thus far is the
importance of communication. One of the project organizers states, "Whether
it's outreach or research activities, early communication with all interested
parties is essential." By speaking with the internal committees and external
audiences (agencies, non-profits, schools, citizens, etc.) duplicative efforts
can be avoided, problem issues can be met head-on, and collaborative/
cooperative improvements can be made.
For example, the project's oyster cultch program (whereby shells were
purchased and used as seed to stimulate oyster propagation), involved many
parties ranging from restaurant owners, fishermen, shellfish officers, and
community residents. If any one of these audiences had been left out, the
project may have faltered. Project organizers attribute the success of this effort
to the thorough communication link that had been previously established.
RELATED MATERIALS
To find out more about the Wellfleet Harbor Mini-Bay Project, the MBPGrant
Programs fact sheet and MBP newsletters are available. Please call 1-800-
447-BAYS.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
MICHIGAN
MITCHELL CREEK WATERSHED NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STUDY
BY
ALLEN
BACKGROUND
Grand Traverse Bay is one of the few remaining oligotrophic embayments in
the Great Lakes, and arguably, has the highest water quality of the larger Lake
Michigan Bays. The bay serves as the focal point of northwestern Michigan's
recreationally-based economy and high quality of life. Unfortunately, the
Bay's popularity has resulted in increased economic development and urban-
ization within its watershed, which can potentially increase the input of
nutrients and other pollutants into the Bay. However, despite the likelihood
of increasing nutrient inputs resulting in localized problems, water quality of
the Bay remains in overall good condition. Mitchell Creek is a prime example
of a watershed contributing increased nutrient loadings into the Bay.
PURPOSE
Because many existing and potential sources of pollutants to the Bay are
nonpoint sources, pollution control is not easily implemented and will require
a watershed approach to identify and prioritize actions needed to remediate or
prevent degradation. Within the Mitchell Creek Watershed, agricultural and
recreational land uses and increasing urbanization either are degrading, or
have the potential to degrade, surface and ground water quality. Increasing
land development within the watershed will likely lead to increased pollutant
loadings and increased potential for storm water runoff carrying contaminants.
Thus, protection of Mitchell Creek's surface and ground water resources is
vital to Grand Traverse County's quality of life and ecological integrity.
Because the creek is the most significant tributary to the southern portion of
the east arm of Grand Traverse Bay, uncontrolled development and land use
practices within its watershed could significantly degrade this valuable
economic and aesthetic resource. Protection and intelligent land management
of the Mitchell Creek watershed will therefore have a beneficial effect on
Grand Traverse Bay and on the entire region.
KEY PLAYERS
The Final Report: Mitchell Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution
Study examines the current extent of nonpoint source pollution in the Mitchell
Creek Watershed and its relationship to Grand Traverse Bay. It also predicts
future impacts of urbanization and offers remedial and preventative solutions
to these impacts. The work was commissioned by the Grand Traverse County
Prain Commissioner under a Section 319 (Clean Water Act) grant from the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The following objectives formed the basis of recommendations in this report:
Protection of surface water quality
Provision of flood control
Protection of ground water supplies and integrity
METHODOLOGY
Generally, Mitchell Creek water quality is good, showing few signs of
degradation. Streambank erosion was not problematic in this watershed as the
steeper, credible upland subwatersheds of Mitchell Creek are largely undevel-
oped. Non-storm event baseflow observations found high dissolved oxygen,
low BOD, low suspended solids, and relatively sediment-free stream beds
necessary to maintain the MDNR-designated cold water habitat.
Some evidence of nutrient loading to Mitchell Creek and Grand Traverse Bay
was observed. Total phosphorus and nitrate concentrations may be occasion-
ally elevated enough to impact localized portions of Grand Traverse Bay,
chiefly through the stimulation of offshore weedbed growth.
Recommendations for controlling and reducing both current and future
nutrient loads to Mitchell Creek include the following:
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
Preservation of the form and function of wetlands
Creation of 50 foot riparian buffer zones along sections of perennial and
intermittent stream channels
Creation and preservation of forest cover
Control of soil erosion
Agricultural and golf course Best Management Practices (BMPs) which
integrate soil erosion and sedimentation control with nutrient and pest
management plans
Urban stormwater BMPs which provide water quality treatment and
maintain the existing water balance within the watershed, while provid-
ing flood control
Sanitary sewers and community wastewater treatment for all new resi-
dential developments
Implementation of the Mitchell Creek Watershed Management Plan will be
accomplished by a three-pronged approach of planning,..education, and
special ordinance creation. Planning efforts will involve the modification of
zoning ordinances and master plans. Education will be integrated with the
curricula of the two elementary schools and new junior high school within the
watershed. Special educational materials will also be mailed to residents of the
Mitchell Creek Watershed, particularly riparian landowners. Adoption of the
draft Grand Traverse County Soil Erosion and Stormwater Runoff Control
Ordinance will develop the necessary foundation for implementing urban
BMPs. An amendment to the ordinance can establish additional requirements
for agricultural and golf course BMPs.
LESSONS LEARNED
An effective and low-cost method to implement nonpoint source control in
Mitchell Creek watershed has been accomplished by the review and modifi-
cation of the zoning and land use ordinances of Traverse City, East Bay, and
Garfield Townships. Specifically, the ordinances were revised to include
provisions that will protect the watershed.
For example, language that requires special use permits for golf courses has
been added to the zoning ordinance. The special use permit process will
provide the vehicle to mandate BMPs. Furthermore, careful planning and
ordinance revisions can be used to limit the number of potentially threatening
activities to the stream's water quality along an individual tributary.
Other ordinance modifications directed at nonpoint source control could
include:
Vegetated buffer strips along streams and ponds
Encouragement of forest conservation
Mandating on-site stormwater control (regional control, where appli-
cable).
Encouragement of municipal sewer construction instead of septic sys-
tems to prevent dissolved contaminants from entering the groundwater
and eventually Mitchell Creek or Grand Traverse Bay
Require urban stormwater BMPs for future developments along new
major roadways
Require residential developments to develop a site specific turf BMP
program as a condition of zoning approval. The BMP program should
contain mandatory notification of its practices to potential lot purchases
and grounds-keepers.
Conservation easements may also be a useful tool for protection riparian
corridors, woodlands, wetlands, recharge areas, and other sensitive areas.
Conservation easements allow land owners to lower real estate taxes on their
property and to restrict land use changes. Easements have been successfully
employed for endangered species protection and open space preservation.
Easements in the Mitchell Creek watershed could be coordinated through one
of the local land conservancies.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
OWO
EQUIPMENT Buv-Doww PROJECT, MAUMEE RIVER BASIN, OHIO
BY EVA HOTTMAN
PURPOSE
In the early 1970s, phosphorus was identified as the major cause of eutrophi-
cation in Lake Erie. Immediate efforts were focused on reducing point source
loadings from municipal sewage treatment plants. Between 1972 and 1982,
phosphorus loadings from municipal sources were reduced by 85 percent.
Consequently, it soon became clear that further reductions in phosphorus
entering Lake Erie would have to come from nonpoint sources, specifically
agriculture. As a result, the State of Ohio adopted a Phosphorus Reduction
Strategy for Lake Erie with an annual nonpoint source phosphorus reduction
goal of 1,390 metric tons, of which 900 metric tons were allocated to
agriculture.
The single largest contributor of phosphorus and sediment to Lake Erie is the
Maumee River basia The basin contributes 46 percent of the phosphorus and
37 percent of the sediment entering Lake Erie while providing only 3 percent
of the inflow. In 1985, the International Joint Commission (IJC) identified the
Maumee River as one of 43 Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the Great Lakes
Basin.
BACKGROUND
The Ohio portion of the Maumee River basin drains about 4,850 square miles
(3,104,000 acres) and covers portions of 17 counties. About 80 percent of the
land surface in the basin is cropland. While erosion rates are relatively low,
the soils are high in clay content. The clay particles easily suspend in water
and have chemical and physical properties that strongly absorb phosphorus,
thus creating a major water quality problem for Lake Erie.
KEY PLAYERS
To address this water quality problem, an inter-agency team composed of
representatives from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA),
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources (ODNR) developed an implementation strategy addressing agri-
cultural runoff in the Maumee River basin. This strategy was based on
recommendations from the Maumee River Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
Stage II Report, the State of OHIO Phosphorus Reduction Strategy for Lake
Erie, Ohio's Nonpoint Source Management Program, and local phosphorus
reduction strategies from county phosphorus reduction committees in the
Maumee River basin. All of these documents identified land use practices,
specifically conservation tillage and winter cover residue, as the best way to
maximize reduction of sediment and phosphorus in the shortest period of time.
Consequently, the implementation strategy emphasized "buying down" or
lowering the cost a farmer pays for farm equipment that leaves more plant
residue on the soil surface.
In October, 1991, the Maumee RAP Implementation Strategy was approved
as a demonstration project and awarded a $641,000 Regional 319 Set-Aside
grant from the U.S. EPA. With these funds the implementation of the strategy
began to take shape.
METHODOLOGY
Specific project guidance was developed. It included targeted critical areas,
a list of residue-enhancing equipment and land treatments approved for cost-
share, maximum cost-share amounts and minimum acreage requirements for
each cost-share item, and criteria for selection of applicants. Within these
broad project guidelines, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) in
the Maumee Riverbasin were given the latitude to design programs that would
address local concerns. In addition, each S WCD was allocated a portion of the
grant based on the percent of targeted cropland in the county and was permitted
to approve or disapprove applications from farmers in the county. Having this
type of local involvement helped to create the essential element of local project
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
ownership.
t
A Joint Advisory Board, consisting of one representative from each county in
the Maumee River basin, was formed to provide local input and direction to
the project. The creation of the Board helped to balance individual county
agendas with the larger goal of improving water quality for the entire Maumee
River basin.
After the first year of this three-year project, it was very clear that the project
was experiencing widespread acceptance by the agricultural community.
Furthermore, it was well on its way to exceeding estimated water quality
benefits. The following items present a snapshot of the project after its first
year
477 farmers from 15 counties volunteered to participate in the project
89 percent of the total $641,000 award was allocated to farmers in the form
of equipment cost-share payments.
The $573,020 of federal cost-share allocated during the first year, generated
$4.9 million of matching funds from farmers, which in turn, had a
significant effect on local economies.
The 477 farmers committed an average of $ 10,000 of their own money in
pollution control equipment.
Every federal dollar allocated to nonpoint source pollution prevention
generated a $7 to $10 local commitment to pollution control from the
farmer.
Farmers purchased the following piece^s of equipment through the program:
206 no-till drills, 145 planter retrofits, 21 chisel plows, 5 chisel plow
retrofits, 19chiselharrows,and 176chaff spreaders. Land treatment acres
included: 20 subsoiling acres, 7 filter strip acres, and 3 winter cover crop
acres.
At a minimum, 122,808 acres were treated the first year, resulting in a
savings of 94,752 pounds of phosphorus and 74,938 tons of soil.
LESSONS LEARNED
The high number of farmers volunteering to participate and the large amount
of local matching funds for this project, indicates that farmers are willing to
shoulder more of the costs of pollution prevention and abatement programs.
Moreover, this project demonstrates that a limited supply of federal dollars can
be used to focus the resources of many farmers on a common goal, such that
significant water quality improvements are achieved and rural economies are
stimulated.
By knowing how and where to apply limited federal dollars, farmers can be
encouraged to voluntarily adopt improved and environmentally sound man-
agement practices, thereby demonstrating that government and the agricul-
tural community can work together to find environmentally sound, economi-
cally viable, and socially acceptable solutions to water quality issues.
RELATED MATERIALS
For further information, please contact Eva Hottman at the Ohio EPA Division
of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, 1800 Water Mark Drive, Colum-
bus, OH 43266-0149. 614-644-2856/614-644-2329 Fax
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
ECOLOGICALLY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
BY BRIAN L. HOWES AND DALE D, GOEHRINGER
BACKGROUND
Steadily increasing nutrient inputs associated with increased coastal develop-
ment poses one of the most serious long-term threats to the health of our coastal
waters. Through a unique collaborative effort between private citizens,
scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, land management
specialists and local governments, we are integrating state-of-the-art coastal
and watershed ecological approaches with land use planning, policy concerns
and education objectives for coastal management. Unlike some programs
which gather data "of use to managers", the Nantucket Harbor (Massachu-
setts) Project directly carries the information gained by basic research through
to the level of environmental management In addition, the program maintains
a substantial public education component to increase public understanding of
the fragile ecology of our coastal environments. Our goal is to develop and
implement a new approach of ecosystem-based environmental management
which will serve as a model for other coastal communities in their efforts to
balance utilization with long-term protection of their valuable coastal re-
sources, and to redirect environmental management approaches at local, State
and Federal levels.
The Nantucket Harbor Project is actually the culmination of many years of
scientific investigation into nutrient dynamics in a variety of coastal ecosys-
tems, from eutrophic and heavily impacted coastal salt ponds and harbors to
pristine marine-derived lake ecosystems in Antarctica. The overall goal of the
program is to develop management and monitoring strategies based on
quantitative data to provide the most cost effective yet ecologically sound
approaches toward nutrient related water quality problems. Nantucket Harbor
was selected as the location for this work based upon several advantages over
other coastal ecosystems: 1) Nantucket Harbor supports the variety of
ecosystem types representative of coastal ecosystems along the Mid and North
Atlantic coast enabling application of the results to a wide variety of coastal
environments; 2) unlike some coastal systems, this harbor is only recently
beginning to show signs of significant nutrient-related stress (as opposed to
systems already in advanced stages of deterioration which confounds the
ability to determine cause and effect required for management); 3 approxi-
mately 1/3 of the watershed of Nantucket Harbor is developed, with another
third preserved in land trusts and conservation. The final third, however, is
currently under pressure for development and therefore increases in the rate of
nutrient loading to the harbor are occurring which may double the current
loading over the long term. This gives us the opportunity to determine at what
location and to what degree development can best continue without serious
negative impacts to harbor ecosystems; and 4) the direct partnership between
public citizens, local governments, land management specialists and scientists
enables swift and direct applicationfof results to management objectives for
these systems.
PURPOSE
The objectives of the Nantucket Harbor Project are to promote management
programs to preserve the functioning of ecosystems, not merely the attempt to
preserve species (eg! clams, scallops, etc.) or to deal with environmental
problems on a "crisis by crisis" basis. High water quality is crucial to many
economic activities along the coast, notably commercial fishing and shellfishing
and the variety of recreational activities that attract tourists and seasonal
residents alike, as well as the aesthetic value of these resources which are
fundamental to most tourist-based economies along the coast. In many
communities, however, coastal systems have already so deteriorated that
multi-million or even billion dollar remedial projects are being undertaken in
attempts to partially restore water quality. Sound environmental policy for
coastal waters and harbors must be grounded in an understanding of their
ecology and the impacts of activities in the surrounding upland, an understand-
ing crucial to management decisions yet generally lacking in the general
development of most coastal management plans. The goals of this program,
environmental management of coastal waters based upon ecological assess-
MANAQEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
WATER DUALITY
ment - watershed evaluation - direct community involvement is a new
approach to coastal planning, and ultimately the only approach that will
adequately deal with the long-term consequences of coastal pollution.
METHODOLOGY
The project is unique in that it strives to increase our basic understanding of
the workings of coastal systems to provide the basis for cost effective,
inexpensive monitoring programs that can be undertaken by virtually any
coastal community at low cost It also strives to differentiate between those
alterations to water quality due to natural versus man-related sources, an
important component of understanding alterations to any natural system. To
obtain detailed scientific understanding of the ecosystem dynamics within
these systems, the Woods Hole laboratory runs additional highly specialized
measurements and analyses for the very purpose of being able to provide
fundamental information on nutrient cycling that will allow interpretation of
baseline data in other ecosystems.
KEY PLAYERS
The multi-disciplinary nature of this project has resulted in a multi-component
funding structure. Start-up funds for the program came from the Rotary Club
of Nantucket and the Nantucket Land Council, a local non-profit conservation
organization to support an initial monitoring program providing needed
baseline data. The direct benefits to the Town of Nantucket have resulted in a
commitment of funds from the town/county, local conservation organizations,
and over half from private fundraising events such as sailing regattas and sale
of shirts to benefit the study. Significant in-kind support has been provided by
various groups such as the University of Massachusetts' Nantucket Field
Station, Nantucket Marine Department and Board of Health, and the Nantucket
Land Council. The great interest of local citizens in the project has been
demonstrated by their commitment of both time and financial support
LESSONS LEARNED
This project benefits all sectors of the community as all citizens gain, both
economically and aesthetically, by maintaining the health of their nearshore
waters. More, importantly, however, is the wide ranging application of the
information gained in this effort to other coastal towns, both in New England
and all along the East Coast of the Unites States, as more and more commu-
nities recognize the serious long-term threats posed to the health of their
coastal waters and are seeking assistance with the development of their own
"environmentally guided" management plans. Although the monitoring is
designed for nearshore coastal waters, it could easily be tailored for any
aquatic system, either fresh or salt water. Finally, these efforts are making a
significant contribution to ongoing scientific research efforts aimed at under-
standing how these nearshore coastal systems respond to increased nutrient
loading from increased development pressure, a serious problem faced today
by virtually every coastal city and town.
RELATED MATERIALS
For further information contact the authors at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543.508-457-2000 ext 2319/508-457-2169 Fax
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
CALIFORNIA
NEARY LAGOON: NEGLECTED MARSH RESTORED, TO WILDLIFE REFUGE
BY RICK HYMAN AND DENA ROBERTSON
PURPOSE
This innovative project is the preparation and implementation of a comprehen-
sive wetland management plan. The purpose is to restore a neglected and
historically abused marsh into the wildlife refuge for indigenous and migrat-
ing species that it once was before the negative impact of human development.
Additionally, the Neary Lagoon (California) Management Plan offers unique
opportunities for the public to view and experience a variety of habitats
without disruption to these sensitive ecosystems.
The Neary Lagoon Management Plan provides direction for creating a balance
among the lagoon's various purposes for wildlife values, public use and safety,
flood protection, water quality, mosquito control, and aesthetics. Achieving
this balance of purposes requires a, detailed level of on-going management that
is comprehensive and adaptive to changes. Without such restoration and
management, the lagoon would continue to be degraded and would lose the
valuable resources for both wildlife and the people of the Monterey Bay
region.
BACKGROUND
Although preparation of the Neary Lagoon Management Plan commenced in
1975, there was a long hiatus until the mid 1980s. Components of the Plan were
prepared between 1986 and 1990. Serious work on comprehensively complet-
ing the Plan resumed in 1991. A City-wide Task Force was formed to review
and edit the Plan and a series of public workshops were held in 1991. The Plan
was approved by the California Coastal Commission in 1992. Since that time,
the Plan has been in the implementation stage.
KEY PLAYERS
The work on the Neary Lagoon Management Plan1 involved the entire
community: adjacent neighborhoods, environmental groups, city staff, and
community leaders, as well as various agency representatives including the
Coastal Commission, the California Department of Fish and Game, and a
number of expert assistants. Literally hundreds of people were involved.
The Coastal Commission has regulatory and plan review authority, and
required the preparation of the Plan as a condition of the construction of
projects at the lagoon involving some wetland fill, including a park and a
wastewater treatment plant. The City of Santa Cruz has planning and regula-
tory authority as owner of the lagoon itself, and of adjacent land which it
dedicated to the construction of an award-winning low income housing
project. Both agencies were, and are, committed to the health of the lagoon,
and to balancing the various needs of adjacent developments while protecting
the habitat from disruption.
. i
METHODOLOGY
The following steps were taken to ensure that the management plan was
prepared and implemented in a manner to accomplish its intended purposes:
The requirement to prepare the Plan included as a first step that an outline
be prepared that all parties would agree to.
As time went on, the required elements of the Plan were updated to reflect
changed circumstances and the requirements were repeated in subsequent
regulatory and planning decisions.
Advance components of the Plan were completed to address immediate
adjacent development proposals and ensure adequate buffers.
A consultant was hired to write the plan.
An advisory task force was formed to oversee Plan preparation and hold
public meetings.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Gose coordination occurred between City and the Coastal Commission
staffs.
An implementation chapter with budgeting and timing was a key compo-
nent of the Plan.
Funding for preparation and implementation of the Plan was derived from
the wastewater fund, since the expansion of the Plant occurred adjacent to
the lagoon.
LESSONS LEARNED
The need for the persistence of staff and a commitment to the Coastal Act
and environmental goals.
The need to create community consensus around the preservation of the
lagoon and the environmentally sensitive habitat in the face of seriously
threatening adjacent developments, notably the wastewater treatment
plant and the affordable housing project.
As a result of the persistence of the staff of the Coastal Commission and the
City, the seemingly conflicting goals of achieving affordable housing and
meeting wastewater treatment needs were reconciled. These competing
needs were reconciled through a consensus building process. All the
players were able to perceive the environmental value of the lagoon
habitat and were therefore willing to make compromises in the design,
location and landscaping of the adjacent developments.
One example of how such a commitment to and appreciation of the
environment of the lagoon was created, is the use of the JTPA (federally-
funded) summer youth employment program. This program, targeted at
teens at risk of delinquency and disadvantaged teens, was utilized to hire
a crew of youths to work at the Neary Lagoon Refuge. They not only
removed invasive species from the marsh and grassland areas, but they
also painted out graffiti and conducted a whole series of wildlife surveys.
Using local environmental groups, these teens were taught how to identify
and record sightings of rare and endangered waterfowl and birds, to
monitor the flow and level of the lagoon, and to generally gain an
appreciation of the many ecosystems in the area.
RELATED MATERIALS
"Initial Study/Negative Declaration Neary Lagoon Management Plan.
February 18,1992.
Background documents/components for the "Neary Lagoon Management
Plan".
"Neary Lagoon Birds and Waterfowl". 1993.
Coastal permits for park improvement, wastewater plant expansion, and
affordable housing projects.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
A MANAGEMENT STRATEGY TO PROTECT AN ENDANGERED
COASTAL SAND DUNE ECOSYSTEM BY LILLIAN Y. KAWASAKI
PURPOSE
This project has leveraged funding from multiple sources and existing pro-
grams to revegetate approximately 200 acres of coastal sand dunes in Califor-
nia. This innovative effort combined job creation for young people with
environmental education and community involvement. Almost all of the labor
to complete the effort was provided by economically disadvantaged youth and
community group based volunteers.
BACKGROUND
The El Segundo Sand Dunes are the last
bastion of what was once a vast coastal
sand dune ecosystem in Southern Califor-
nia and are home to a number of rare and
endangered species, including the El
Segundo Blue Butterfly. For nearly 40
years, the area was also a residential neigh-
borhood overlooking the Pacific Ocean.
on the dunes had been landscaped using non-native vegetation. Some plants,
like iceplant, now covered many acres and had almost completely overgrown
native sand dune vegetation.
The City of Los Angeles, Environmental Affairs Department began seeking
grants to fund the restoration work, and developing partnerships with commu-
nity groups, technical experts and youth employment programs. This ap-
proach was extremely cost-effective
and also provided mentors for the
young people, who were able to work
side-by-sidewithscientificexperts. The
California Coastal Conservancy
granted $75,000 for the revegetation of
lOacresin 1991-92, and the California
Department of Transportation granted
$430,000 for restoration through Sep-
tember of 1994. These funds will reveg-
etate about 200 acres of the habitat.
The dunes are located at the west end of the
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
and, between 1928 and the mid-60s they played host to a residential housing
tract. By the late 1960s, residents had elected to have their land purchased by
the City and turned into a noise and safety buffer zone. Approximately 800
homes were removed from about 300 acres of land, the area was fenced and
navigational equipment was placed on site.
In the early 1980s, the California Coastal Commission encouraged the City of
Los Angeles, Department of Airports to contract a biological study to evaluate
the habitat. The Department of Airports approved $200,000 of expenditures
between 1985 and 1992 for studies and initial restoration. Most of the homes
The El Segundo Sand Dunes are the
last bastion of what was once a vast
coastal sand dune ecosystem and are
home to a number of rare and endan-
gered species. For nearly 40 years> the
area was also a residential neighbor'
hood overlooking the Pacific Ocean,
KEY PLAYERS
The City of Los Angeles, Department
of Airports and the Environmental Affairs Department have worked closely
with local City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter to provide some City resources
and to apply for grant funding. The State of California has provided much of
the funding and the California Coastal Commission has provided the neces-
sary permits to perform the work. The Los Angeles Conservation Corps has
provided work crews using federal matching dollars to increase the number of
young people able to work on the site. Local non-profit organizations,
primarily Rhapsody in Green and Heal the Bay, have spearheaded "Day at the
Dunes" events regularly. The most important players of all are the many
volunteers who have given so much of their time.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC OUTREACH
YOUTH ACTIVITIES
METHODOLOGY
The project was funded through transportation enhancement grants, and
efforts were made to leverage dollars at every step. The contractor was asked
to not only provide the technical facilitation of the project but to also include
the environmental education and monitoring components needed to complete
the work using young people and volunteers. More than $100,000 was
allocated to volunteer recruitment and management of the work crews and
volunteers, and to provide environmental education. The Summer Youth
Employment Program (S YEP, City of Los Angeles) provided paid internships
at the dunes for economically disadvantaged inner-city youth.
LESSONS LEARNED
The biggest lessons learned during the project were to be flexible in dealing
with multiple agencies and to look for opportunities to leverage dollars and
utilize existing programs which would lead to job training and promote
stewardship with the youth throughout the process. The project has vividly
illustrated that public-private partnerships are wonderful ways to strengthen
community bonds.
One recommendation would be to start the volunteer recruitment as soon as
possible, and to look for ways to increase the number of participants early. It
is also important to look for employment opportunities and add job skill
training whenever possible.
RELATED MATERIALS
The consultants are continuing to develop materials to help raise awareness for
this unique ecosystem. Existing materials include the history of the area,
newsletters to volunteers, and technical papers associated with the restoration.
In addition, press releases were written and news conferences were held to
promote the effort.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
THE GRASS VALLEY CREEK WATERSHED STORY
BY KATHY SIMPSON
BACKGROUND
According to the old-timers in Trinity County, California, "there was a time
when you could walk across the (Trinity) River on the backs of the fish."
Renowned for its salmon and steelhead populations, the Trinity River - which
drains the 23,000-acre Grass Valley Creek Watershed and empties into the
Pacific Ocean, attracted many anglers and campers, making tourism one of the
foundation industries in this northern California county.
Wildlife Service, Humboldt County, Trinity County Board of Supervisors,
U.S. Forest Service, USDA-Soil Conservation Service , National Marine
Fisheries Service, Hoopa Valley Tribe, California Department of Fish and
Game, California Department of Water Resources, California Water Re-
sources Control Board, and California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection. The goal of the TRTF is to restore the fish and wildlife populations
to pre-dam levels.
Approximately 17,000of the 23,000 acres
of the Grass Valley Creek Watershed is
underlain by decomposed granite parent
materials. These materials weather into
some of the most highly erosive forest
soils in the Western U.S.
According to the old-timers in Trinity
County? California, "there was a time
when you could walk across the (Trin-
ity) River on the backs of the fish."
When the Trinity portion of the Central
Valley Project was completed in 1963, involving the construction of the
Trinity and Lewiston dams, the result was the diversion of nearly 90% of river
flows for other uses. In the absence of these flushing flows, decomposed
granite sediment from Grass Valley Creek Watershed began to build up in the
river, causing the loss and degradation of much of the fish and wildlife habitat.
It has been suggested that more than 800,000 salmon and steelhead trout
annually came upriver before 1960 and that as few as 7,000 were found in
1992.
METHODOLOGY
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) conducted a comprehensive in-
ventory of the Grass Valley Creek
Watershed in 1991 in which they lo-
cated over 1100 site-specific sediment
sources. The Trinity River Restoration
Program, working through the National
Heritage Institute and the Trust for Public Land, leveraged a buy-out of 17,000
acres of land owned by Champion International, a timber management
corporation. After the buy-out, the management of the land was turned over
to the Bureau of Land Management, whose focus is to stabilize the watershed
and to halt logging on the fragile and highly credible soils.
KEY PLAYERS
The Trinity River Restoration Project was funded in 1984 which spearheaded
by the Trinity River Task Force (TRTF), a group of 14 federal, state, local and
tribal agencies. These agencies are the. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BoR),
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and
The Trinity County Resource Conservation District, (TCRCD) working with
SCS and utilizing restoration funds administered by the BoR, is now imple-
menting an erosion control and restoration program including biotechnical
stabilization techniques. The TCRCD employs over 30 full-time staff, and
uses local equipment contractors, California Conservation Corps crews, and
state inmates to implement the work.
One of the keys to success has been the cooperation of all the agencies and
entities involved. To ensure buy-in from the different groups and choosing the
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
SEDIMENTATION
FISHERIES
best solutions possible, peer reviews have been instituted and frequent tours
have been conducted to inspect the work and get professional input from the
technical experts and agencies involved. This resulted in recognizing the
futility of turf battles and the benefits of concentrating their energies into
working toward the goals of the project.
The Trinity River Restoration Program budget is planning for funds into at
least 1996 and possibly beyond. The original amount allotted for restoration
was $2.3 million. The buy-out phase cost $9.2 million. And another $9 million
is expected to be expended, including sheet and rill erosion work for which the
SCS has written a proposal.
LESSONS LEARNED
The Adopt-A-Watershed educational program is a unique pan of the restora-
tion efforts and has been flourishing in the Trinity River Basin. The Task Force
recognized the value education as a means to insure long-term restoration
efforts and provided a budget of $299,000 to initiate a formal pilot project for
developing curriculum for Kindergarten through 12th grades. Students have
helped plant trees, work with resource professionals to do restoration projects
in the watershed, and studied the streams, plants and wildlife. Their data are
collected and will present a picture of changes over time and a basis for
comparison with other areas.
The efforts to stabilize and revegetate the mountainous decomposed granitic
areas have provided many challenges and opportunities to try state-of-the-art
techniques. Many groups have been drawn into the process, including the
California Department of Transportation, which has placed more emphasis on
maintenance of roadways including drainage and erosion control systems, and
the Pacific Gas & Electric Company which is working with the TCRCD on
erosion problems on powerline right-of-ways.
RELATED MATERIALS
The TRTF has compiled a library of materials which is housed in the Trinity
County Free Library on the different aspects of the Grass Valley Creek
Watershed project.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
SONOMA COUNTY WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
BY Lee ERICKSON
PURPOSE
The problem: Long-term, ongoing degradation of unique coastal estuary
wetlands in fjord-like settings in two coastal California watersheds by up-
stream sediment loading from dryland agricultural grazing areas.
Overall objectives: Elimination/reduction/control of point-source and non-
point source sediment in tributary watersheds.
BACKGROUND
Project Implementation: This program was unique in that a special coastal
resource impacted by upstream watershed activity was protected by work
completed within the watershed on private property with voluntary coopera-
tion of landowners. Over SO individual repair projects were completed with
40 cooperating landowners. Additional technology transfer to the agricultural
community and public included tours, publications, a range seminar day, static
displays for public events, and VIP tours for interested agencies and groups.
v
Specific repairs included the following categories:
1) Multi-purpose gully grade control structures that stabilize gully walls, trap
upstream sediments and bedload, provide gully crossings, livestock
water, riparian habitat, and incidental game and non-game species wild-
life benefits.
2) Livestock culvert crossings.
3) Fenced gullies and stream areas.
4) Shaped/unshaped rock-armored headcuts and channel linings.
5) Contour diversion ditches with pipe drop inlet systems or armored headcut
chutes for hillside surface runoff.
6) Vegetation restoration and enhancement in work areas.
Program Maintenance Efforts: Individual repair projects have legally-binding
deed restrictions requiring landowner maintenance. Repair designs followed
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS) criteria,
resulting in high-quality, conservatively designed structures with little or no
maintenance required.
Involvement: Cooperative working relationships were formed with the Key
Players noted below.
Project Cost: $8,000 planning grant to CRP from the California Coastal
Conservancy. $1.2 million implementation grant over 5 years to the Gold
Ridge Resource Conservation District (GRRCD) from State bond funding
provided California Coastal Conservancy. $150,000 grant over 1 year from
offshore oil spill mitigation fine provided by Sonoma County Planning
Department. $ 120,000 supplemental appropriation provided by Conservancy
administration based on demonstrated performance and need. Total budget
approximately $1.478 million. In-kind staff contributions from SCS, Califor-
nia Department of Fish and Game, GRRCD, others.
KEY PLAYERS
Agencies/Organizations/Individuals
California Coastal Conservancy (funding, oversight), Circuit Rider Produc-
tions, Inc. (concept, initial study, partial admin., fencing/revegetation), Gold
Ridge Resource Conservation District (all aspects implementation, admin),
USDA Soil Conservation Service (technical assistance), Santa Rosa CA Field
Office (advisory panel, tech assistance), State Engineering Office, California
(design review, contract specs), Sonoma County Planning Department (addi-
tional funding), California Department of Fish and Game (site/design evalu-
ation, permitting), Marin Resource Conservation District (portion of work
area), Citizen's Advisory Committee (program oversight), 40 cooperating
landowners within watershed work areas (individual projects).
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
WATERSHED PROTECTION
SEDIMENTATION
METHODOLOGY
Survey watersheds to inventory erosion sites (CRP Inc, 1986).
Develop restoration program proposal for Coastal Conservancy funding.
(CRP.GRRCD)
Develop site selection criteria for repairs/enhancement.
District staff generates annual work load proposal on voluntary basis with
landowners.
Advisory Committee, Board evaluate, select approx 1/3 of proposals for
funding.
Site selection based on benefit/cost analysis, feasibility, landowner ok,
other criteria.
License/Maintenance agreements (deed restriction with sunset clause) with
landowner.
Repairs designed, reviewed, approved using USDA-SCS criteria, inter-
agency cooperation, i ...
Public noticed, competitive bids for licensed, bonded, insured contractors
at prevailing wage. i
Construction, inspection, documentation by District staff.
Maintenance by landowner on as-needed basis.
LESSONS LEARNED
Large-scale point source erosion sites in dryland agricultural settings continue
to degrade without intervention. Unstable gullies are generally perpetuated by
forces beyond the control of the landowner. Local agricultural producers have
generally good stewardship objectives with limited economic resources for
implementation of repairs. Wide-scale voluntary cooperation with individual
private landholders can be achieved with appropriate formulation of site-
specific implementation strategies. Essential factors include:
1) One-on-one communication with landowners,
2) Staff with agricultural background and sensitivity to traditional community
practices and values,
3) Development of solutions benefiting both Program and Landowner, and
4) Sensitivity to management Skills and practices of individual cooperators.
Public resource agencies can work together in implementing a watershed-
based enhancement strategy with landowners. Inter-agency cooperation
brings together sometimes competing philosophies for technical approach or
delivery method, requiring a clear delineation of management structure and
hierarchy for successful program implementation. Open communication and
lack of hidden agendas between key players is essential. While more difficult
arid time consuming to accomplish, Program implementation with multi-
agency inputs results in a better overall product as problems and opportunities
are viewed from a broader perspective.
Additional opportunities remain for watershed-based enhancement of estua-
rine wetland resources. Grant funding constraints resulted in emphasis on
point-source erosion control with demonstrable immediate benefits and tan-
gible benefit-cost ratios. Other management tools like widespread adoption
of innovative pasture management/improvement techniques have good poten-
tial for sediment reduction, but require adoption of intangible philosophical
changes in range management strategies by numerous landowners. Time
constraints, management skills, landowner motivations, financial constraints,
and economic incentives are among the factors affecting such changes.
RELATED MATERIALS
GRRCD Annual Reports, static display materials, and annual progress reports
to the Coastal Conservancy are available from the Gold Ridge Resource
Conservation District, 874 Gravenstein Highway South, Suite 6, Sebastopol,
CA 95472. 707-823-3037
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
MARINE RESOURCE MITIGATION PROGRAM FOR THE IMPACTS OF
A COASTAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BY LINDA LOCKLIN
PURPOSE
In 1991, the California Coastal Commission (the Commission) voted to
require Southern California Edison (SCE) to restore ISO acres of tidal wetland,
and create a 300-acre artificial kelp reef. The mitigation program was
designed to address the impacts of the operation of the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3 on the marine environment. The
program also includes a requirement to
install fish barrier devices at the SONGS
Units 2 and 3 water intakes and a require-
ment to partially fund a white sea bass fish
hatchery.
following are key elements of the mitigation requirements:
explicit performance standards will define the success of the mitigation
projects;
a long-term independent monitoring program will measure the success of
the constructed reef and wetland in meeting performance standards;
BACKGROUND
The mitigation program is the result of a
15-year study of the impact of the plant
that was conducted by the Marine Review
Committee (MRC), a panel of scientists
establishedasaresultoftheCommission's
original permit action in 1974. The MRC
found that the plant's cooling system caused significant adverse impacts to the
kelp community in the San Onofre Kelp Bed by discharging turbid water over
the kelp bed, and caused a significant reduction in the standing stock in a
number of mid water fish populations in Southern California Bight as a result
of the intake of fish eggs and larvae with the cooling water.
METHODOLOGY
The mitigation program is innovative because it includes a number of elements
that were specifically designed to minimize the risk that resources lost or
damaged by the power plant would not be adequately mitigated. The
In 1991) the California Coastal
Commission (the Commission) voted
to require Southern California
Edison to restore 150 acres of tidal
wetland, and create a 300-acre
artificial kelp reef.
a failure to meet a performance stan-
dard can, over the life of the project,
trigger a requirement for remedial
action to improve the ability of the
project to meet the standard;
the mitigation program incorporates
ongoing scientific guidance and re-
view.
KEY PLAYERS
The program is also innovative in the
roles it gives SCE and the Commission in
carrying out the program. The permit
requires that each party consult with the other party at key decision points. The
Commission's role is to oversee SCE's design and construction work, ensure
that SCE complies with the terms of the permit, approve plans, take the lead
in monitoring operations, judge the success of the projects, and determine if
remediation is necessary. SCE is responsible for the planning and construc-
tion phases. SCE is also responsible for the success of the mitigation projects,
and is given reasonable latitude in making decisions about the projects'
designs. In addition, responsibility for remediation provides an incentive for
SCE to take extra care in planning and designing the mitigation projects.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
LESSONS LEARNED
The mitigation program represents a long-term commitment by both the
Commission and SCE. In requiring monitoring and remediation of the reef
and wetland over the life of the power plant, the permit recognizes that a user
of coastal resources is responsible for the resulting adverse impacts, as long as
the use continues. Although SCE and the Commission have distinct roles in
the program's implementation, the two parties share an important goal - that
the mitigation projects will be successful. The performance standards for the
wetland and reef will both define and focus the user and regulator on this goal
and help to ensure that the mitigation achieves full resource compensation.
The mitigation program is in its early stages. In the future, the program will
produce technical data that should prove very useful in designing and con-
structing other kelp reefs and tidal wetlands. In addition, the program should
provide guidance in setting mitigatiqn policy and designing mitigation re-
quirements. , '
RELATED MATERIALS
For more information please contact Gabriela Goldfarb at the California
Coastal Commission, 45 Freemont, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 941105-
2219. 415-904-5200
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES OF THE TAMPA BAY
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM BY MARY HOPPE
BACKGROUND
The future of Tampa Bay (Florida) depends upon the ability of local residents
to prudently manage the region surrounding it. While the B ay itself covers 398
square miles, land draining into the Bay spans a five-county area almost six
times its size. It is here, within Tampa
Bay's 2,300 square mile watershed, that
bay management and restoration ultimately
begins. While some damage to the bay
occurs as a result of activities on the water,
most of the pollution and practices that
adversely affect the health of the bay origi-
nate on land.
restoration and enhancement, including tidal marshes, mangroves, seagrass
and other submerged aquatic vegetation, nonvegetated bay bottom, and open
water or pelagic communities.
METHODOLOGY
PURPOSE
Improvements in overseeing land-based
activities that may damage the bay or
cause pollution is the foundation of a mas-
ter plan for watershed management now
being developed by the Tampa Bay Na-
tional Estuary Program (NEP), a partner-
ship of local, state, and federal agencies.
While water quality traditionally has
served as the barometer for the suc-
cess of protection efforts, the Tampa
Bay NEP's strategy emphasizes a
critical next step by linking water
quality standards to the environmen-
tal requirements of the bay's most
important habitats and the'aquatic
>
communities they support.
While water quality traditionally has served
as the barometer for the success of protection efforts, the Tampa Bay NEP's
strategy emphasizes a critical next step by linking water quality standards to
the environmental requirements of the bay's most important habitats and the
aquatic communities they support.
The Tampa Bay NEP has targeted the bay's five most essential habitats for
Recognizing the diverse environments
within the bay and its rivers, the Tampa
Bay NEP will select aquatic plants and
animals vital to each segment as indicator
species. Monitoring the health of these
plants and animals will be critical in deter-
mining the overall health of their portion
of the bay.
Seagrass, which provides food and shelter
to many important species of fish and
shellfish, offers an excellent example of
the procedure to be followed for almost all
targeted habitats. Specific goals for
seagrass recovery, documented in terms
of acreage, will be set by recording his-
toric levels and identifying permanently
altered areas that would prevent or limit
growth. Maps of current seagrass mead-
ows represent protection targets, where
healthy grass beds are now growing and must be maintained. Long term goals
for restoration enhanced by reducing pollution or other physical impacts, such
as boating and dredging.
While enhancing structural habitat is important, the ultimate measure of
success is whether these habitats are functional, supporting healthy aquatic
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
PROTECTION
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
WATER QUAUTY
communities. New monitoring standards, that look for indicators of the health
of the bay's living resources, are now being developed by the Tampa Bay NEP.
The Tampa Bay NEP is completing a comprehensive review of conditions in
the bay, as well as scientific studies which will define the environmental
requirements of essential bay habitats and animals. Concurrently, we are
conducting in-depth research to quantify the level and concentrations of
pollutants now being discharged into Tampa Bay.
The Tampa Bay NEP and other agencies are creating mathematical models
which will predict improvements in water quality as pollutant levels are
lowered. Although numeric goals for water quality are not the final objective
of the bay restoration plan, they will be used as interim criteria. Numeric
objectives for reducing pollution will be set for each major section of the bay
based on the long-term goals for enhancement and restoration of habitats and
animals. *
Finally, a watershed action plan outlining specific commitments, timelines,
and funding sources from government agencies participating in the Tampa
Bay Program will be developed and included in the overall plan for bay
management.
KEY PLAYERS
Watershed protection ultimately depends on all citizens of the region. Florida
Neighborhoods, a program developed by the Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program and administered through the county cooperative extension offices
in the Bay Area, brings concepts of environmental stewardship to the home
and yard. :
The Program, which is now in its pilot phase, pairs neighborhoods with teams
of experts trained to assist residents in preventing pollution from stormwater,
conserving water, and restoring native habitat Florida Neighborhoods begins
with a two-part environmental check-upa survey of homeowners to deter-
mine landscaping and homecare practices and an on-site neighborhood
assessment by a team of experts. Following the check-up, the team develops
a 12-month action list identifying ways that residents can improve the local
environment. Hands-on assistance is provided through a series of workshops
that teach conservation and environmental landscaping techniques.
Efforts such as these, that make watershed protection a part of our daily lives,
are crucial to the long-term protection of the bay.
RELATED MATERIALS
For more information please contact Mary Hoppe at the Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program, 111 Seventh Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.813-
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
GARCIA RIVER WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
ev AUN MOHR
893-2765/813-893-2767 Fax
BACKGROUND .
The North Coast of California is famous for its picturesque rugged coast. In
Mendocino County, 120 miles north of San Francisco, the coastal range gives rise
to several coastal rivers known for their outstanding salmon and steelhead sport
fisheries and unique fishing villages. Small towns located at the mouth of these
rivers depend upon tourism, commercial and sport fishing, logging, farming, and
gravel extraction. This dependence upon scenery on one hand and resource use
on the other creates a fragile balance, and conflict in the communities themselves.
Nowhere is this more apparent then on the Garcia River flowing from headwaters
high in coastal range to a small estuary surrounded by potato fields and dairy
lands. The tranquillity here belies deeper issues between those that depend upon
traditional uses of the watershed's resources, and environmental interests. It is the
process of finding common ground among such opposing viewpoints that makes
the Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Project an innovative leader in coastal
protection efforts.
The Garcia River drains 114 square miles. The upper watershed is steep
forestland, much of which is scarred by erosion from past logging. The more
gently sloping lower reach is used for farming and grazing. The small estuary (80
acres of open water and mud flats) serves as an important habitat for anadromous
fish, shore birds and waterfowl, and other wildlife. Until ten years ago, the river
was widely known for its large Coho salmon and its excellent steelhead fishery
but the combined pressures of a long drought and degraded spawning habitat have
resulted in a serious decline in the anadromous fish population.
PURPOSE
In 1990, residents from the Garcia River watershed approached the Mendocino
County Resource Conservation District (District) with the idea to develop a plan
that would stem the decline in the river and address the visible impacts of past land
use activities. The District is set up under state law to provide soil and water
conservation assistance to landowners in Mendocino County. It is a local county
agency managed by an appointed five member volunteer board of directors; it is
assisted by technical staff provided by the USDA, Soil Conservation Service. The
community request was timely, the District had worked for ten years restoring the
Tomki Creek watershed, an inland area, and felt it was time to undertake a similar
project in a coastal watershed.
KEY PLAYERS
**»
While the people that approached the District were largely from the environmen-
tal community, the District felt it would need a range of landowners working
together so that all interests could become stakeholders in the results. The success
of the project hinged upon understanding and responding to the needs and visions
of the property owners of the watershed, regardless of their positions. To this end
a Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) was formed; its 12 members represent
major interest groups in the watershed including: gravel operators, the timber
industry, environmentalists, agricultural and tribal representatives, and commer-
cial and sport fishermen. In addition, technical advisors from several agencies
were involved, including the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the Department of
Fish and Game, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the
Mendocino County Water Agency, the County Extension and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
METHODOLOGY
Development of the watershed plan was supported by a $100,000 grant from the
California Coastal Conservancy, awarded in 1991. The WAG met throughout the
18 month planning process to develop goals, review and make recommendations
for the Plan. Every recommendation was agreed upon by consensus of the
members. The Plan was completed in October 1992, with the stated purpose of
fostering conservation, restoration and sound management of the Garcia River's
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
natural resources. The main objective of the WAG and the Plan is to restore the
salmonid fishery in the River by treating areas of accelerated erosion that impact
water quality and fisheries habitat.
One of the first major obstacles to confront was the issue of gravel extraction, an
extremely divisive issue that threatened the ability of the WAG to forge any
agreement. The District was aware that the gravel issue was being examined on
a county-wide basis, and decided that it had a broader scope, being subject to state
and federal regulatory authority. The Plan was based on voluntary cooperation;
regulated activities needed to be treated differently. As gravel operations were
an important part of the river's complexion, the District compromised by
developing a scope of work for a Gravel Management Plan for the river and
turning this information over to the County for completion of a separate plan that
would become a model for the entire count/. To do so, the District asked SCS to
provide a team of hydrologists and river planning experts to recommend the tasks
needed to develop a comprehensive gravel management plan. The SCS Hydro-
logic Unit Planning (HUP) Team from Davis, California provided a clear outline
of the needed tasks and the District assisted the Mendocino County Water
Management Agency in obtaining an EPA 205(j)(5) planning grant in the amount
of $75,000 to prepare the Gravel Plan to be completed in December 1993. On the
contentious gravel issue the District was able to turn what could have been a
quagmire into a positive long term solution to help the river and the wider
resources in the County.
Although the District relied heavily on the WAG to provide community input, it
also wanted to ensure that all landowners and residents would be able to provide
their views. Public outreach was a critical part of the planning process it was
the goal of the District to ensure that by the time the Plan was complete everyone
would know what was happening. To keep the landowners informed of the Plan's
progress, The Garcia River Update, a four page bulletin outlining issues and
noticing WAG meetings, was distributed quarterly to 250 landowners in the
community. As a result, WAG meetings were regularly attended by 20 to 30
landowners. By the time of the Public Hearing to adopt the Plan and throughout
the California Environmental Quality Act process (an environmental review
requirement similar to federal NEPA), there were no adverse comments from
landowners. The District had proved that by ensuring full public participation,
few, if any, felt uncomfortable with the outcome of the Plan.
LESSONS LEARNED
With the first step complete, the District has moved toward implementing plan
recommendations. While planning can be difficult, implementation is the true
test. Implementation has been initiated through funding received from AT&T
and the District Attorney's Office. This funding was a windfall that can largely
be attributed to the existence of the Plan and the perseverance of the District and
the WAG. In July 1992, AT&T contractors installing a fiber optic line under the
river accidentally spilled several thousand gallons of drilling mud into the river.
The District and the WAG members negotiated with AT&T regarding the
mitigation for the accident and were rewarded with close to $200,000 in
implementation funds. While these funds are nowhere near the amount needed
to fully fund the projects of the Action plan, they will serve as match for other
grant monies as well as fund some smaller projects. One of the large timber
landowners, Coastal Forest Land has agreed to initiating restoration projects oh
its land and will assist with matching funds. The Conservancy has pledged to
provide additional implementation funds; and the local environmental group,
Friends of the Garcia (FrOG) has been able to secure foundation grants for small
projects. The District has made a long term commitment to restore the Garcia
River. At least ten more years of funding sources will be needed but, the
community and the District are ready to stay the course. The Garcia River and
coastline are too precious for anything less.
RELATED MATERIALS
Copies of the Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Plan and Action Plan are
available from the Mendocino County Resource Conservation District, 405
Orchard Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482. The cost is $ 10.00 per copy.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
HAWAII
HANAUMA BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN
BY ROBIN C. BOND
PURPOSE
Hanauma Bay is one of Hawaii's most popular and significant recreation areas
and tourist attractions. Visitor use since 1980 has grown to over 3,000,000 per
year and with that have come numerous problems impacting on this fragile
environment. Some of the major problems were overcrowding, water pollu-
tion, damage to coral reefs, uncontrolled fish feeding and a general lack of
management of a very important resource.
The objective of the Hanauma Bay Management Plan was to regain control of
the bay through a series of management controls.
BACKGROUND
In early 1989, the City and County of Honolulu, Department of Parks and
Recreation formed a task force to develop a management plan. Working with
other state and local government agencies and numerous environmental and
The most important recommendation
is that governmental agencies should
establish management plans and be
proactive in managing environmen-
tally sensitive areas before they get
out of control
concerned groups, the plan was developed and implemented in July, 1990.
METHODOLOGY
The management plan was completed in six (6) phases:
1. Identify the natural resources associated with Hanauma Bay.
2. List all current and potential users of Hanauma Bay.
3. Establish goals and objectives based on State and City criteria.
4. Formulate policies, regulations and controls to support the goals and
objectives.
5. Identify current problem areas and implement solutions to minimize or
eliminate the negative impacts on the bay.
6. Monitor the plan and fine tune as necessary.
The management plan included a number of important actions:
1. Hired a full-time professional manager to direct the day-to-day operations
at the bay.
2. Established strict rules and regulations on public use and enforced them to
ensure that activities are compatible with goals and objectives.
3. Developed and implemented a public educational program to teach the
public how to use and protect the park.
4. Closed the park at night to prevent vandalism and illegal fishing.
5. Made major improvements in the park sewer system.
6. Established a master plan for specific improvements that would enhance
and improve the natural qualities of the park.
7. Implemented traffic and parking controls.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
8. Made major improvements in the parks maintenance program.
LESSONS LEARNED
The most important recommendation is that governmental agencies should
establish management plans and be proactive in managing environmentally
sensitive areas before they get out of control. A few important comments on
establishing a management plan are:
Establish realistic, written goals and objectives
Enlist the aid of knowledgeable groups and individuals
Keep the task force in a manageable size
Keep administration informed of all important developments
Keep an open mind but be prepared to stand your ground on certain
sensitive areas ->
RELATED MATERIALS
For more information please contact Robin Bond at the Department of Parks
and Recreation, City and County of Honolulu, 650 South King Street,
Honolulu, HI 96813. 808-527-6078/808-523-4823 Fax
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
MASS BAYS LOCAL ACTION: LOCAL GOVERNANCE COMMITTEES
BY ELIZABETH McEvov AND SUSAN SCHNEIDER
PURPOSE
The local governance committees (LGC) of the Massachusetts Bays Program
(MBP) were formed in 1992 to ensure that a local voice was brought to the
Program and that MBP resources were directed appropriately for local action.
In Massachusetts, where home rule prevails and local decision-making can
have a great impact on the environment,
local officials were considered key play-
ers. The LGC is divided into five regional
groups from Cape Cod to the Upper North
Shore of Massachusetts, with officially
appointed representatives from the 49
coastal communities.
' I
The LGC has direct input into develop-
ment of the Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan, advises the Pro-
gram on local issues of concern, works on
priority projects within their regions and
with other MBP committees, and promotes
natural resource-based planning and man-
agement.
plan priority actions. The LGCs have helped personalize the activities of the
Massachusetts Bays Program on a local level.
KEY PLAYERS
The LGCs have learned the value of
cooperative efforts in cleaning up
shared resources. Communities are
working together on projects that
could never be accomplished without
the focused attention of all communi-
ties that contribute to the problem.
The LGC has a region-wide membership of more than 100 people; approxi-
mately 20 members per regional commit-
tee. The members include local elected
officials, town planners, harbormasters,
shellfish wardens, health advisors, and
appointed residents of Mass. Bays com-
munities.
METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
Early on, the MBP recognized the need to actively involve local government
in order to respond to local concerns across the region. Five committees make
, up the full local governance committee: "8 Towns and the Bay", representing
the upper north shore; "Salem Sound 2000", representing communities
surrounding Salem Sound; the Metropolitan Boston LGC; the South Shore
LGC; and the Cape Cod Coastal Resources Committee. Each has its own
workplan developed to complement the Mass. Bays Program management
The local governance groups have devel-
oped specific projects in their regions to.
respond to local environmental concerns.
Technical staff were hired through the
regional planning agencies who are inte-
grating the MBP concepts into their own
agendas. LGC projects include water quality monitoring programs, sanitary
surveys, shellfish bed restoration projects, resource guide publications, com-
munity organizing of water quality task forces, establishing oil collection
centers, funding remedial studies for removal of a noxious alga, and sponsor-
ing local workshops on coastal issues of concern. Projects are well received
by the communities and have generated tremendous media attention.
LESSONS LEARNED
To date, the LGCs have learned the value of cooperative efforts in cleaning up
shared resources. Surrounding communities are working together on projects
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
WATER QUALITY
that could never be accomplished without the focused attention of all commu-
nities that contribute to the problem. On the South Shore, for example, 11
towns have developed a program for shellfish bed protection by focusing on
four rivers and embayment systems in their region in a collaborative effort
with the state Division of Marine Fisheries. The project will hopefully serve
as a model for shellfish bed protection across the state.
In Salem Sound, the communities of Salem, Beverly, Marblehead, Peabody,
Danvers, and Manchester are conducting a shoreline survey to assess the 48
miles of the shoreline of Salem Sound. This effort is largely volunteer and has
succeeded to date because of the collaborative approach that's been estab-
lished among the many interests involved in Salem Sound 2000. Local
government, business, citizens, and scientists have come together for the first
time to protect this precious resource.
RELATED MATERIALS >
Call the Massachusetts Bays Program for more information on the local
governance committees at 1-800-447-BAYS.
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
CALIFORNIA s -<
TOMALES BAY WATERSHED RESTORATION
BY LAUREL MARCUS
BACKGROUND
Tomales Bay is a large coastal embayment on the California coastline which
receives sediment and freshwater from a 225-square mile watershed. This
watershed is largely agricultural land which serves as grazing lands for cattle,
sheep, and dairy operations Most of the watershed is in private ownership.
PURPOSE
Tomales Bay is shrinking in size. Sedi-
ment from its two largest tributaries are
filling in the sub- andintertidal areas of the
bay at an alarming rate. One tributary,
Walker Creek has a delta which grows at a
rate of 50 feet per year. The source of this
filling is erosion in the watershed. Recog-
nizing the connection between watershed
erosion and loss of bay tidelands, the Cali-
fornia Coastal Conservancy began, a wa-
tershed restoration program in Tomales
Bay in 1982. The first efforts were small: repairing stream banks and gullies
along the shoreline resort area of Inverness and the residential area of
Lagunitas Creek.
KEY PLAYERS
In 1986 the Conservancy approved a $1.2 million grant to the Mann County
Resource Conservation District (RCD) to repair critical erosion sites on
Walker Creek, the largest and most problematic tributary to Tomales Bay. The
grant would fund a six- to eight-year program. Each year a landowner
committee would nominate several projects for construction. The RCD would
review these and submit a yearly work plan to the Conservancy for approval.
Projects were selected from a master inventory of erosion sites completed for
the watershed.
Since this inventory included many more projects than could be funded;
several criteria were applied: severity of erosion, the likelihood for natural
restoration vs. the need for structural control measures, proximity to a
waterway, willingness of the landowner to cooperate, and cost effectiveness
of repair.
Tomales Bay is shrinking in size. Sedi-
ment from its two largest tributaries
are filling the bay at an alarming rate.
The source of this filling is erosion in
the watershed.
METHODOLOGY
All projects were done on private land
and requi red that a notarized landowner
authorization be recorded onto the prop-
erty for a period of 10-20 years, de-
pending upon the "life" of the repair.
Each year RCD contracted for 10-15
large repair projects consisting of gully
stabilization projects, streambank re-
pairs, road regrading, experimental
range management projects and one large-scale landslide stabilization project.
Project designs were completed in conjunction with landowners who agreed
to maintain the projects. In some cases the project was designed to provide a
new stream crossing or a watering pond as an ancillary use when no conflict
with the erosion control purpose of the project occurred. The RCD, made up
of long-time residents of the area, served a pivotal role in making a "govern-
ment" project acceptable to private landowners.
LESSONS LEARNED
The project has served to reduce sediment into the bay by controlling it at the
source, the most cost-effective answer. In many instances riparian vegetation
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
SEDIMENTATION
was included in the design providing added wildlife benefits and habitat for the
much diminished steelhead and salmon fishery of the creek system. Many of
the projects also involved a match of services from the landowner, either by
use of heavy equipment, construction of fences or other contributions. This
project exemplifies the kind of successful partnerships that can occur bet ween
government and private landowners.
RELATED MATERIALS
For more information contact Laurel Marcus at the California State Coastal
Conservancy, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA 94612.
510-286-1015/510-236-0470 Fax
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
NORTH RICHMOND SHORELINE
BY MELANIE DENNINGER
BACKGROUND
The San Francisco Bay community of North Richmond consists of an isolated
low-income residential area, an oil refinery and other heavy industry, whole-
sale nurseries, a landfill and sewage treatment plan, a crescent-shaped shore-
line with sweeping vistas of the bay and coastal hills, and about 600 acres of
remnant tidal marshes and vacant uplands, most of which are in private
ownership. In 1988, with completion of
flood control improvements and the immi-
nent construction of a new arterial linking
North Richmond to freeways, the City of
Richmond and Contra Costa County were
faced with the prospect of a deluge of
proposals for new development and the
need to generate jobs for residents and
income for the City and County. On the
otherhand, citizens and community groups
were demanding a clean up of the shoreline, a stop to illegal filling of wetlands,
and opportunities for recreational use of the shoreline!
PURPOSE
In response to these challenges, the City, the County, and the California
Coastal Conservancy agreed to work together to prepare a North Richmond
Shoreline Specific Plan for approximately 900 acres along 4 miles of the North
Richmond shoreline. The goals of the agencies and an advisory group of
environmentalists, residents, and business representatives were to set aside
valuable natural resource areas, provide shoreline access for residents and
visitors, and promote compatible development that would create jobs. By
preparing a comprehensive, parcel-specific plan that, when adopted by the
City and County, would have the force of law, we hoped to avoid the further
losses of wildlife habitat, disjointed public access facilities, and years of
disputes and delays to development that would almost certainly result if only
the existing general plans and zoning ordinances were available for guidance
in responding to development proposals.
METHODOLOGY
We hoped to avoid the further losses of
wildlife habitat, disjointed public ac-
cess facilities, and years of disputes
and delays to development.
By the middle of 1993, both the City and County had adopted the specific plan
and amended their general plans to
incorporate it. The specific plan pro-
vides for new development that is ex-
pected to yield 8,700 to 12,100 new
jobs at build out. Almost 600 acres are
reserved for natural resource protec-
tion, parks and open space, or public
access. Detailed design guidelines set
out standards for the appearance of
new private and public development
and also control the potential impactssuch as light and noisepf allowable
development on nearby recreation and wildlife areas. An implementation
element identifies appropriate uses for conditions that may be placed upon
development approvals, including securing public access to the shoreline and
dedications of real property interests for the purpose of protecting wildlife
habitat. The implementation element also identifies a series of employment
development programs, specifies the responsibilities of the City and County
for circulation and infrastructure improvements and proposes a financing plan
for these improvements, and makes detailed recommendations for restoring
disturbed wildlife habitat.
KEY PLAYERS
The City, the County, and the Coastal Conservancy are now working with
other public agencies and the Trust for Public Land to implement the portions
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
of the specific plan that require public funding. Some privately-owned areas R ELATED MATERIALS
that specific plan designates for resource protection will be purchased by
public agencies. While eventual dedication of these areas could be required
as a condition of development approval, there are several reasons to pursue
acquisition, all of which are related to the market for development being much
slowerthan had been anticipated when planningbegan in 1988. First, if certain
landowners are not compensated for the portions of their property that are
designated for resource protection. City and County decision-makers can be
expected to respond favorably to landowners' demands for more extensive
and intensive development. Second, public purchase of the undevelopable
portions of certain properties may improve the economic feasibility of
developing the remainder. Such development is desirable both to provide jobs
and revenue and to discourage the illegal filling and dumping that has plagued
the area. Third, restoration of the disturbed tidal marshes and adjacent uplands
which are habitat for two endangered species is contingent upon public
ownership. Other public agency actions that may be taken to implement the
plan include trail construction, wildlife habitat restoration, and marketing to
encourage development.
LESSONS LEARNED
The success of the specific plan will depend largely upon the resolve of City
and County decision-makers to honor the plan and keep it intact when faced
by pressure to accommodate more development. In addition, it remains to be
seen how quickly new development will create the anticipated jobs, and
whetherornotagencies and environmental groups concerned about protection
wildlife habitat will continue to support all of the new development that the
plans provide.
For copies of the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan contact Melanie
Denninger at the California Coastal Conservancy, 1330 Broadway, Suite
1100, Oakland, CA 94612. 510-286-1015/510-286-0470 Fax
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
-------
OREGON
REDUCTION OF FOAM DEBRIS: FOAM ENCAPSULATION FOR
FLOATING STRUCTURES IN OREGON BY VALERIE F. HOY
PURPOSE
Oregon's waterways are an important resource that should be protected and
enhanced for generations to come. To prevent polystyrene foam from littering
Oregon waters, Oregon enacted a law in 1991 requiring the encapsulation or
covering of the foam used to support floating structures.
The concept behind this new legislation
was to enhance water quality, protect fish
and wildlife resources and decrease the
amount of plastic debris dispersed into
our coastal and inland waterways.
BACKGROUND
In the spring of 1992, the State Marine
Board developed program rules, gath-
ered information on encapsulation prod-
ucts, and implemented a Certification
Form (permit). The rulemaking process
included builders, owners, and foam
manufacturers of floating homes and
floating structures.
The ten years was set as benchmark for the least amount of time an encapsu-
lation material should endure marine conditions.
Polystyrene foam is a small bead foam that is manufactured from resin pellets
that is expanded with steam into round puffed beads. For water applications,
these puffed pellets are then molded with heat into large square or round
buoyancy billets.
One of the keys to the success of the
Foam Encapsulation Program is the
early involvement of manufacturers.
Since they were informed and given
ample time to retrofit their plant, they
were willing to work to implement the
program.
These billets are then pushed/placed
underneath a new dock or floating home
to give it support and buoyancy. How-
ever, it quickly becomes apparent that
this foam in raw form has the potential to
degrade and break into small fragments
under normal marine conditions.
Encapsulation products that were approved by the Board include; resin
coatings, concrete, plywood, hard plastics, fiberglass, plastic sheets 7 mils in
thickness shrink wrapped and galvanized steel. Coverings that are discour-
aged include steel drums, household paints and the use of garbage bags or thin
plastic sheets.
These products were specifically approved by the Board in order to meet the
ten year requirement on the encapsulation material used to cover the floatation.
Environmental conditions, such as wake,
wave and grounding out may cause large
chunks and many small foam beads to
break away and become a pollution prob-
lem. Muskrats, waterfowl and marine
life such as snails, worms and mollusks
will burrow into the polystyrene foam to make a nest, thereby helping to
weaken an already stressed floatation system.
Polystyrene foam particles do not decay naturally for reuse by the environ-
ment. Waterfowl and fish may mistake the foam for food and ingest it. This
could result in a false sense of satiation for the animals and possible weakening
or ultimately starvation.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
MARINE DEBRIS
METHODOLOGY
The first year, the emphasis was to educate industry and builders, spend time
visiting Floating Home and Yacht Gub type organizations to provide informa-
tion on the new program.
The implementation of the Certification Form became a key component in
tracking installation of foam floatation throughout the state and use of
encapsulation materials. The form must be completed for all new construction
projects, and for certain maintenance repair, alteration and additions to
existing floating structures.
KEY PLAYERS
One of the biggest keys to the success of the Polystyrene Foam Encapsulation
Program in Oregon, is the early involvement of polystyrene foam bead
manufacturers. Since they were informed and given ample time to provide
encapsulation materials and retrofit their plant, they were willing to work with
the Board to implement the program and relay the benefits of the program to
builders and owners of floating structures.
Also, enforcement of the foam encapsulation law proved to be a good deterrent
forlocal builders who wanted to skirt the issue. In the spring of 1993, the Board
hired a diving firm for two days to dive floating structures on two highly
developed waterways. As a result of the diving inspection, a local floating
structure builder was found to be in violation of the law and had to replace the
foam in two structures.
Notice of the violation was also printed in a local marine newspaper called
"Freshwater News". Word spread quickly throughout the moorage industry
and we believe this proved to be an effective means of compliance.
LESSONS LEARNED
i
At this time, the Board is developing new standards and reviewing encapsu-
lation materials. As with any new program, details must be worked out
constantly to ensure the program is continuing to meet the intent of the
legislation.
One of the main short comings of the program was the clause in the enabling
legislation calling for the "grandfathering" of existing structures placed in the
water before January of 1992. If possible, this clause should be avoided.
Oregon's program can serve as a model for other states to follow.
RELATED MATERIALS
For more information contact Valerie Hoy, Oregon State Marine Board, 435
Commercial Street NE, Salem, OR 97310. 503-373-1405 x234/503-378-
4597Fax
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
NATURAL WETLANDS FOR CONTROL OF COASTAL WATER QUALITY
BY ROBERT L. KNIGHT, PH.D.
BACKGROUND
Population growth and increased tourism in the Grand Strand area of Horry
County, South Carolina has resulted in increasing demands on the assimilative
capacity of coastal waters. Locations to dispose of additional wastewater
effluents are extremely limited because of sensitive environmental and recre-
ational concerns. Ocean outfalls are not practical because of the importance of
the beach-front resource, and the Intracoastal Waterway has poor mixing and
dilution capabilities. Well-drained up-
land areas suitable for land application are
equally scarce in Horry County.
PURPOSE
These constraints led planners and engi-
neers to an innovative wastewater treat-
ment/disposal option that meets the needs
of the Grand Strand. On the basis of
extensive site selection studies, CH2M
HILL recommended utilizing natural, iso-
lated wetland basins known locally as
"Carolina bays" for final polishing of
treated municipal wastewaters. The addi-
tion of secondary treated wastewaters to these Carolina bays was expected to
enhance and conserve their wetland functions, further reduce concentrations of
oxygen-demanding and eutrophying constituents in the treated wastewater, and
recycle this purified water back to the freshwater/estuarine system.
KEY PLAYERS
The Carolina Bay Natural Land Treatment Project underwent extensive scru-
tiny and review during the eight-year planning and implementation process.
A new concept in developing environ-
mental standards was pioneered with
the Carolina Bays Natural Land Treat-
ment project. These criteria protect
the plant communities in the bays by
mandating that these systems will re-
tain their plant diversity and character.
Agencies that were involved in these reviews included the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control, the South Carolina Coastal Council, the South Carolina Wildlife and
Marine Resources Commission, the South Carolina Water Resources Commis-
sion, the South Carolina Land Resources Commission, and the Waccamaw
Regional Planning Council. The U.S. EPA provided grant funds to the local
wastewater utility, the Grand Strand Water & Sewer Authority, for planning,
pilot testing, and full-scale implementa-
tion of the project. All of these agencies
were very active in reviewing technical
findings, commenting on study plans and
designs, and developing permit criteria
that would be protective of the unique
environmental resources of the area.
METHODOLOGY
A new concept in developing environ-
mental standards was pioneered with the
Carolina Bays Natural Land Treatment
project. Biological criteria were devel-
oped to achieve a consensus on allowable
levels of change for key biological features of the Carolina bays that receive the
treated wastewater. These criteria protect the structure of the plant communities
in the Carolina bays by mandating that these systems will retain their plant
diversity and character as forested and shrub-dominated ecosystems. Allow-
able change thresholds were determined individually for each of the four
Carolina bays in the project area based on their level of previous impacts from
forestry, mining, and power-line crossings. These biological criteria have been
tested during the past six years of treated wastewater discharge to the Carolina
bays, and while serving as a yardstick of changes, have not been violated.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
LESSONS LEARNED
The Carolina Bays Natural Land Treatment System represents a low cost, low
energy solution to providing advanced wastewater treatment in an environ-
mentally sensitive coastal area. It has resulted in the public ownership of over
600 acres of Carolina bays, a landform endangered in south Carolina because
of drainage, farming, forestry, and mining practices. Operation of this system
is relatively simple, involving biologists to monitor water quality and the
biological criteria, and infrequent rotation of effluent discharge between the
alternate Carolina bays. Ultimately, these Carolina bays provide protection of
surface water quality, the most important coastal resource in Horry County.
These innovations led to the Carolina Bay Natural Land Treatment System
being awarded the Engineering Excellence Award, Best of Show, from the
Consulting Engineers of South Carolina and the prestigious Grand Conceptor
Award in 1991 from the American Consulting Engineers Council. On a more
humble but perhaps more important note, the Carolina Bay Natural Land
Treatment System serves as a living classroom for local school children while
providing habitat for plants and wildlife including the threatened Venus fly-
trap and black bear, in an area of accelerating human development.
RELATED MATERIALS
For more information please contact Dr. Robert Knight, CH2M Hill, 7201NW
11th Place, Gainesville, FL 32605-3158. 904-331-2442/904-331-5320 Fax
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
MARSH TERRACING
BY DR. Biu GOOD
PURPOSE
From late 1989 to early 1993, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
completed the feasibility analysis, construction, implementation, and moni-
toring for an innovative coastal marsh
restoration project. In response to critical
coastal land loss, the pilot project was
launched to test a technique for restoring
wetlands in an area where sediment in-
flow is minimal. Funding was provided
by both the State of Louisiana and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
BACKGROUND
Louisiana's wetlands comprise 41% of
the nation's total loss and provide essen-
tial habitat to support an annual $680
million commercial fishing industry, a
recreational fishery valued at $300 mil-
lion annually, and an annual fur harvest
exceeding $17 million. These wetlands
provide additional benefits by diminish-
ing hurricane surge effects, which can
cost coastal communities millions of dol-
lars. Presently, Louisiana experiences
the most critical coastal erosion and land
loss in the United States, accounting for about 80% of the national coastal
marsh loss. More than 25 square miles of Louisiana wetlands disappear every
year as a result of a variety of compounding problems such as erosion,
subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and dredging.
Ridges designed to encourage sedimen-
tation have been used for hundreds of
years in the Netherlands. Breakwaters
have been used around the world.
Planting vegetation to stabilize dunes
or newly dredged material has long
been recognized as a component of
marsh restoration practices* When
these techniques were combined in
Louisiana coastal marshes, the results
were greater than the sum of the indi-
vidual components.
The potential for creating and restoring these resources depends upon a
number of factors including proximity to available freshwater and sediment
sources. Where these sources are inadequate, such as in the Chenier plain of
western Louisiana, restoration efforts must be innovative. A study site was
selected in the Sabine National Wildlife
Refuge to demonstrate a technique called
bay bottom terracing.
METHODOLOGY
Bay bottom terracing uses existing bay
* bottom sediment to form a baffle system
of ridges or "terraces" at marsh eleva-
tion, after settlement. The terraces were
constructed in an open-ended checker-
board design to allow for transport of
aquatic organisms. A backhoe shovel
mounted on a marsh buggy dredged to
approximately 1.52 meters below the
shallow bay bottom. The dredged mate-
rial was then placed on top of the adja-
cent bottom forming a levee or terrace,
the top of which was level with the
marsh surface after settlement. The ter-
races were dredged on alternating sides
to avoid creating continuous canals
which could cause increased scouring.
A total of 128 terraces were constructed in three test areas.
Raising bay bottom elevations above water level provided an opportunity to
determine the cost-effectiveness of several planting techniques for smooth
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). The combination of terrace construction
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
and vegetation plantings was intended to: 1) promote deposition and retention RELATED MATERIALS
of suspended sediments; 2) reduce turbidity; 3) increase fisheries production
by increasing the length of marsh edge; 4) reestablish emergent marsh
vegetation; 5) reduce marsh fringe retreat by reducing fetch; and 6) increase
overall primary productivity.
For additional information contact Dr. Bill Good, Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, Coastal Restoration Division, P.O. Box 94396, Baton
Rouge, LA 70804-9396. 504-342-9435/504-342-9417 Fax
Series of ridges designed to encourage sedimentation have been an essential
component of the sedimentation fields used for hundreds of years in the
Netherlands to reclaim lands from the Wadden Sea. Breakwaters have been
used around the world to reduce wave erosion of the leeward sides of shores.
Planting vegetation to stabilize dunes or newly created dredged material
deposits has long been recognized as a viable component of marsh restoration
practices. However, when these techniques were combined in a design
specified for shallow, Louisiana coastal^marshes with low sediment inflow,
the results were greater than the sum of the individual components.
«*.
LESSONS LEARNED
Data analyzed from aerial photography, on-site surveys, and readings from
satellite-linked data collection platforms have shown that the technique is a
success and the marsh is coming back strongly. The terraces were quickly and
completely vegetated, shoreline retreat was reversed, and annual primary
productivity was increased.
Marsh terracing is a restoration technique which could be employed in other
areas of Louisiana where the soil composition is appropriate, as well as in other
states. Based on information from this project, the USDA Soil Conservation
Service is in the process of developing national standards for construction and
design of marsh terraces and is planning on further construction demonstra-
tions.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
RESTORATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF COASTAL WETLANDS
ev LINDA SHEAD
PURPOSE
The Galveston Bay (Texas) system is not unlike many of our nation's coastal
bays and estuaries in that wetland habitat has been declining over recent
decades as human uses of the Bay's resources have taken their toll. Over
25,000 acres of wetlands were lost around Galveston Bay between 1956 and
1979 alone. Erosion, subsidence, coastal development and dredging are some
of the physical forces that have played a
role in changing the face of the bay sys-
tem. Pollution from municipal and in-
dustrial wastes and nonpoint sources has
added a chemical component to the fac-
tors affecting the Bay. Galveston Bay is
adjacent to the Houston/Galveston urban
complex with 4 million people in the 4
counties which surround the bay system.
It is the home of one-half of the nation's
oil refining capacity and one-third of its
chemical production. It is also the home
of the nation's third largest recreational boating fleet.
The key to the program's success is
inextricably linked to the partner-
ships developed with agencies, indus-
try^ conservation groups, and the
general public.
BACKGROUND
It is through the diversity represented in the Galveston Bay Foundation that
some of the solutions to the Bay's problems are being found. Three years ago,
a cooperative effort was begun to plant smooth cordgrass marsh for habitat
creation and shoreline erosion protection. Smooth cordgrass (Spanina
alterniflora) is the one plant that will grow successfully in the intertidal zone.
Its marshes provide the habitat so essen-
tial for marine life, while at the same
time absorbing wave energy that would
otherwise pound the shoreline, contrib-
uting to erosion.
KEY PLAYERS
Also not unlike much of the nation, the social, economic, and political history
of Galveston Bay has centered around the use/exploitation of the region's
natural resources timber, oyster shell, fisheries, oil and gas. Recently,
however, there is a growing awareness of the need to restore the balance. The
Galveston Bay Foundation (GBF) is a citizen's organization formed in 1987
with the mission of preserving and enhancing Galveston Bay for its multiple
uses, through education, conservation, research, and advocacy. Its Board of
Trustees is composed of individuals and groups representing all the diverse
users of the Bay.
The project has been guided from the
beginning by two of our Advisory Trust-
ees, Eddie Seidensticker from the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) and Bob
Nailon, formerly of the Marine Advisory Service. From their early trial
efforts, procedures were established for transplanting the cordgrass and
providing suitable protection for the young transplants. Each brought their
particular expertisethe botany and the marine biologyin a combination
that proved to be indomitable in energy and commitment to the project.
METHODOLOGY
In 1989, an agreement was signed between the Galveston Bay Foundation and
the Port of Houston Authority to plant cordgrass on islands owned by the Port
in the San Jacinto River. In 1990, planting began, with the Port providing
funding for equipment and supplies used for the project that year. The joint
effort of local, state and federal agencies was supplemented by the volunteer
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
labor provided through the Galveston Bay Foundation. Twenty Volunteers
from among the individual and organization members of the Foundation
participated, representing conservation (Houston Sierra Club), recreation
(Houston Canoe Club), and college service organizations. The two plantings
were also assisted by volunteers from the Saltwater Anglers League of Texas
(SALT), who provided their boats for transportation to the islands.
The second year of planting, 1991, brought an expanded array of volunteer
organizations, an expanded role for SCS, and an additional site. In addition
to the individual and organization members of GBF, new participants were
recruited from agencies and local corporations: the Texas Water Commission,
Exxon Chemical, Exxon Refinery, and Tenneco. A cooperative agreement
between GBF and SCS provided volunteers for their project and insurance for
the volunteers, who became part of the SCS Earth Team program. A new
cooperative agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided
fencing materials and supplies to support a planting project to protect the
shoreline of the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge. With coordination by
GBF volunteers and staff, seven plantings were completed that year, five at the
refuge (not requiring boating transportation) and two on the San Jacinto River.
A total of 92 volunteers participated.
For 1992, the project received two additional boosts. The Texas Water
Operators Association (the barge industry) had funded the construction and
operation of a boat for GBF: The Bay Ranger, with capacity for 16 volunteer
workers, was christened in the fall of 1991. The availability of regular, safe
boating transportation enhanced the opportunities. In addition, the Wray
Trust, a local, charitable foundation, funded a part-time conservation intern for
GBF, to coordinate the effort and to build in an educational component.
Continued funding from the Port allowed for purchase of additional scientific
equipment, as well as materials and supplies. Approximately 200 volunteers
participated in 16 plantings at 6 sites, with over 20,000 square feet of marsh
created.
LESSONS LEARNED
The key to the program's success is inextricably linked to the partnerships
developed with agencies, industry, conservation groups, and the general
public. In each case, the overwhelmingly positive response of volunteers at
the end of the day comes with the wealth of new knowledge they have
extracted from the experience and the satisfaction from knowing that they
have contributed to an improved ecosystem for Galveston Bay.
RELATED MATERIALS
For more information please contact Linda Shead, Galveston Bay Foundation,
17324-A Highway 3, Webster, TX 77598. 713-332-3381/713-332-3153 Fax
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
NORTH CAROMNA
TOTAL. MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD CASE STUDY:
ALBEMARLE/PAMLICO ESTUARY BY RANDALL DODD
PURPOSE
Over the past decade, North Carolina's Albemarle and Pamlico (A/P) Sounds
have experienced increasing water quality problems ranging from fish kills to
declining populations of aquatic vegetation. In response to these and other
problems, the A/P Estuarine Study was initiated in order to characterize the
basins and determine potential management strategies.
BACKGROUND
Excessive nitrogen and phosphorus loadings were identified early on as key
factors impairing the health of the estuary. As a first step to address this
problem, the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources -Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) developed a
modeling approach which is currently being used to screen the A/P watersheds
for areas contributing excessive nutrients to surface waters. The approach
uses LANDSAT imagery and geographic information system technology to
analyze land use within the basins, and then uses a combination of export
coefficients and mass balances to calculate nutrientloadings from the 68 North
Carolina watersheds and 44 Virginia watersheds within the study area.
North Carolina's Albemarle and Pamlico (A/P) basins comprise the second
largest estuarine system in North America. With a total watershed area of
30,880 mi2, the basins are home to nearly 2 million permanent residents. The
area is prized for its many recreational opportunities, including swimming,
boating, fishing, and shellfish harvesting. The system is also a significant
nursery area for East Coast fisheries. The A/P fisheries industry comprises a
substantial portion of the coastal and State economy, with an estimated value
of processed fisheries products of $64.7 million in 1988. In recent years, the
quality of this valuable resource has been declining due to human waste
contamination, draining of wetlands, increased near-stream development, and
agricultural and urban runoff.
KEY PLAYERS
In response to these problems, and in light of the system's high recreational
and commercial values, the A/P system was designated as an Estuary of
National Significance in 1987 and was selected to be studied as pan of EPA's
National Estuary Program. The resulting Estuarine Study was initiated as a
cooperative program between EPA and North Carolina's Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR). Its purpose is to
evaluate the nature of the basins' environmental problems and to determine
how the estuaries can best be preserved and managed.
METHODOLOGY
The 1991 Status and Trends report forthe Albemarle/Pamlico Estuarine Study
stated that accelerated eutrophication resulting from nitrogen and phosphorus
loadings is a significant cause of water quality degradation in many tributaries
to the estuary. In particular, the study found that nuisance algal blooms, anoxic
events, and some fish kills have been associated with nutrient loading to the
estuary. As a first step toward controlling nutrient loadings, the A/P Study
developed a screening approach designed to narrow the focus of future
nonpoint source (NPS) control efforts. The approach consists of developing
nutrient budgets within the sub-basins comprising the North Carolina portion
of the A/P study area (Research Triangle Institute, 1992). These budgets will
then serve as a tool for screening out "critical" areas of high nutrient loading.
The information gained from this process is valuable for total maximum daily
load (TMDL) development and for targeting BMP cost share funding to areas
causing the greatest nutrient loadings.
A mass balance approach was also used to calculate nonpoint source loadings.
This approach attempts to account for and balance the input, output, and
storage of nutrients in the system. Due to data limitations, this approach was
only used for agricultural areas in the 16 gauged watersheds of the A/P study
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
EUTROPHICATION
area. Inputs for the mass balance included fertilizer, precipitation, livestock
wastes, and nitrogen fixation. Outputs included the nutrients in harvested
crops, soil fixation, denitrification, loss to swamp forests, and river export.
Average annual total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) export was
estimated for gaged watersheds. These estimates were based on STORET
daily average flow and concentration data for the 1987-1989 water years.
Average loa'ding (flux) was calculated according to the equation:
W=w(Q/q)
where: W = average flux (kg/y) w = mean of measured flux*
Q = mean of daily average flow q= mean of measured flow*
* on days when nutrients were sampled
Nutrient loadings for each of the 68 sub-basins in the North Carolina portion
of the A/P Study area were summarized into charts depicting the data at
various levels of spatial aggregation. Graphical analysis of nutrient loadings
at each level were then used to compare relative impacts between basins, sub-
basins, or land uses within a sub-basin.
LESSONS LEARNED
As part of its new Basinwide Planning process, North Carolina intends to use
the information obtained through the A/P screening to target areas for TMDL
development. Watersheds showing high nitrogen and phosphorus loadings,
especially those nearest the estuaries, will be selected for special management
attention. The Tar-Pamlico Basin, in the central portion of the study area, has
already been targeted for PS/NPS trading of nitrogen loads.
Once critical watersheds are identified, other small-scale nutrient and sedi-
ment models could be used in determining optimum BMP scenarios to reach
desired reduction limits. The Nomini Creek TMDL Case Study discusses use
of watershed-scale models with a Geographical Information System (GIS) in
order to quantify loads and identify critical nonpoint source areas.
GIS technology is also expected to play a role in illustrating the need for
controls to the agricultural community and municipal dischargers. In addition,
the GIS will be used to study the use of riparian buffer protection and
restoration to supplement on-the-farm BMPs, which alone may not achieve
the desired nitrogen and phosphorus reductions in A/P watersheds.
The A/P databases and modeling results are being incorporated into "sub-
basin profiles," which summarize characteristics of each sub-basin (e.g., land
use, point sources, crop statistics, livestock operations, pollutant loading
characteristics). This information has also been compiled into a PC database
which will allow NCDEM users to have desktop access to watershed data
previously available only through a mainframe or a GIS.
Other rural NFS models have been linked with GISs, but many are data-
intensive and storm-event driven. The approach used in the A/P Study was
chosen specifically for its ability to handle a large multi-basin area, while still
providing output for screening at the sub-basin level. It is important to note that
the A/P nutrient screening approach estimates annual loadings, which is
suitable within a long-term context for nutrient management of basins drain-
ing to estuaries and lakes. Data requirements are such that small watersheds
or large basins can be screened and management scenarios can be tested (e.g.,
combinations of BMPs and PS control strategies). The A/P approach is,
however, more data intensive than some screening models. Where nationally
available data were out of date or unreliable (e.g., land use/cover information,
some agricultural statistics) the latest data were acquired (e.g. the 1987-88
LANDSAT imagery and State-maintained crop statistics) to ensure that
screening results would be credible to the decision makers and other stake-
holders as well.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
: SOUTH CAROUNA
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ON THE ISLE OF PALMS CONNECTOR
BY Joe FERSNER
BACKGROUND
On February IS, 1990 the South Carolina Coastal Council approved, with
some interesting design provisions, a permit to construct a new bridge to the
Isle of Palms. The unique provisions centered around the incorporation of a
stormwater management system.
PURPOSE
Stormwater runoff from bridges is a seri-
ous problem and has generated concern
for water quality and shellfish protection.
Runoff can carry hydrocarbons, oils,
greases, heavy metals, and other pollut-
ants, but until recently, most bridges in
South Carolina were built without appro-
priate measures to curb the detrimental
impactof runoff. However, an increasing
amount of information available on the
effects of storm water runoff has prompted
many organizations to take another look
at how this problem may be solved or at
least reduced.
METHODOLOGY
In the case of the Isle of Palms connector, an innovative combination of
fiberglass collection pans was proposed along with a closed pipe system which
discharges into containment areas. This stormwater management system is
designed to capture the first half-inch of rainfall or "first flush" which contains
the majority of the contaminants. Fiberglass pans or trays approximately 15
feet long, 2 1/2 feet wide and a foot in depth will be attached on both sides of
Stormwater runoff can carry hydro-
carbons, oils, grease$> heavy metals,
and other pollutants* Until recently,
most bridges in South Carolina were
built without appropriate measures to
curb the impact of runoff.
the bridge for a distance of approximately 770 feet. A drain discharges into
each pan. Through a separator outlet system, oil and grease is separated from
the water to remain in the pan along with other settled pollutant particles.
Development of the fiberglass pan system evolved through a joint effort by the
engineers of the S.C. Coastal Council and the S.C. Department of Highways
and Public Transportation using a criteria / alternative design / evaluation
approach. In other words, the basic criteria for the system was first established,
and alternative designs which would accomplish the criteria were explored
and evaluated to be accepted, rejected or
modified. After a number of designs and
many refinements, the fiberglass pan
evolved as the design which met most of
the basic criteria. It is not known if a
similar system is used elsewhere.
The biggest concern in the design of the
fiberglass pan system is the issue of
maintenance. The system will not func-
tion if not regularly maintained. In re-
sponse to this concern, the Highway
Department agreed to implement a main-
tenance program which, at a minimum, will consist of vacuuming the pans
clean every thirty days and the proper disposal of the material in accordance
with the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental control procedures.
The system will also be inspected every two weeks, and an up-to-date log will
be kept of both the inspection and the maintenance work. The Highway
Department will also participate in a monitoring program to test the effective-
ness of this stormwatermanagement system forthe protection of shellfish and
water quality. If warranted, the Coastal Council and the Highway Department
will modify the runoff pans to correct any problems.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The fiberglass pan system was not appropriate for the steeper section of the
bridge that crosses the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. For a portion of this
span, a closed pipe collection system wiU capture runoff and discharge into a
diked retention area. The section of bridge directly over a dredged disposal
area is designed with scuppers to discharge directly into this disposal area. The
terminal section of the bridge at the Isle of Palms is designed to collect runoff
in pipes and transport it to a dissipation / containment structure located under
the bridge.
KEY PLAYERS
Several organizations and individuals assisted the Coastal Council with the
developmentof this stormwatermanagement plan, including: South Carolina's
Department of Highways, Wildlife and Marine Resources, the Department of
Health and Environmental Control, and the Governor's office; Congressman
Arthur Ravenel; Sierra Club; Coastal, Conservation League; the Town of the
Isle of Palms; the Federal Highway Administration; and many other con-
cerned citizens and organizations*
LESSONS LEARNED
Even though the Isle of Palms connector's storm water collection system is an
exploratory type of design, it is hoped that the concern for protecting our
coastal waters and shellfish will continue to influence the implementation of
proper runoff management practices on bridges. If successful, the connector's
management system could have applications for future bridges.
RELATED MATERIALS
For more information please contact Donna Gress at the South Carolina
Coastal Council, Ashley Corporate Center, 4130 Faber Place, Suite 300,
Charleston, SC 29405. 803-744-5847/803-744-5847 Fax
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
COMPOSTING BY-PRODUCTS FROM BLUE CRAB AND SCALLOP
PROCESSING PLANTS BY JAMES C. CATO
PURPOSE
The common practice of dumping residues from blue crab and scallop
processing plants into landfills has created numerous landfill management and
environmental quality problems in Florida. In fact, seafood waste disposal
accounts for as much as 25% of the annual operating budgets of some Florida
landfills. In an effort to solve these problems, the 1988 Florida legislature
mandated that the practice of landfilling seafood wastes would have to end.
Unfortunately, the requirement that residues be disposed of somewhere other
than in landfills created severe economic hardships for many processing
plantsparticularly plants in rural areas
that were already experiencing economic
difficulties. Because of the economic
importance of the seafood industry in
these rural communities, the Florida Sea
Grant College Program organized sev-
eral projects to determine alternative
methods for disposing of these wastes.
BACKGROUND
A total of 250 people were involved in
the effort~**ihese included paid per"
sonnet, as well as volunteers who
donated more than 4,000 hours of
work to the project*
When signed into law in 1988, Chapter 88-130 of the Florida Statutes
mandated that alternatives to the landfilling of seafood processing by-prod-
ucts be explored. The sum of $500,000 was made available to the Department
of Environmental Regulation (DER) to develop projects to demonstrate these
alternatives. DER contracted with Florida Sea Grant to provide technical and
management assistance and work began on the demonstration projects in June
of 1989.
A number of meetings were conducted during which county officials, seafood
processing plant operators, state regulatory agency officials, and university
faculty identified the critical waste management problems to be addressed and
demonstration projects were identified. These early meetings established a
spirit of cooperation that continued throughout the project and contributed
heavily to its ultimate success. A total of 250 people were involved in the
effortthese included paid personnel, as well as volunteers who donated
more than 4,000 hours of work to the project.
KEY PLAYERS
In order to insure the success of the effort, Florida Sea Grant combined the
skills and interests of numerous agencies and individuals. For instance, DER
contributed funding and review; offi-
cials from the counties of Taylor,
Wakulla, and Brevard provided local
coordination; Sea Grant Marine Exten-
sion Agents supervised the composting
projects inTaylorand Brevard counties;
the Woods End Research Laboratory
provided scientific expertise; the Uni-
versity of Florida's Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences conducted analy-
ses of the effectiveness of the resulting
compost; the Suwannee River Resource Conservation Development Council,
Inc. developed marketing plans for the final product; numerous seafood
processing plants provided the raw materials required for the project; and
Waste Management Inc. delivered the seafood waste by-products to the
demonstration sites.
METHODOLOGY
The basic methodology employed on the project was to first identify and then
test the viability of various alternatives to the disposal of seafood processing
wastes in landfills. The tested alternatives included in-plant methods (wet
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
FISHERIES
SOLID WASTE
extrusion, compacting, and anaerobic byconversion) and composting of blue
crab and calico scallop residues. Actual testing of the various alternatives
revealed that while the in-plant methods held promise, numerous problems
would have to be resolved and further research would be necessary before any
of the tested methods could be recommended as a solution to the problem of
what to do with seafood processing by-products. On the other hand, the
composting projects clearly demonstrated the potential of this process for
largely solving the disposal problems confronting blue crab and scallop
processors in Florida.
For the blue crab composting project, a demonstration site was selected in
Taylor County. Crab scraps were then transported daily to the site from crab
processing plants in Wakulla, Franklin, and Taylor counties. Upon arrival, the
scraps were added to various mixes of sawdust, pine bark, yard'trimmings and
other materials. The resultant mixtures were arranged in windrows and were
turned each day by a mechanical device. This turning process greatly
accelerated the pace of composting and helped alleviate any offensive odors.
A similar project was conducted in Brevard County using scallop viscera.
Over an 18-month period, nearly 1,000 tons of blue crab scraps and about 100
tons of scallop viscera were composted at the demonstration sites. The results
showed conclusively that these seafood scraps could be economically con-
verted to compostthus alleviating the need to burden already stressed
landfills with huge amounts of seafood wastes. In addition, the resulting
compost was shown to be a marketable commodity that could be sold in both
bagged and bulk quantities. As a result, a major coastal waste management
problem was solved while a usable product was produced.
LESSONS LEARNED
The key to the success of this project was the spirit of cooperation that existed
between all of the parties involved in it. The fact that all of the concerned
parties were confronted with a problem that had to be solved (i.e. what to do
with the seafood scraps when they could no longer be landfilled) helped
galvanize support for the overall effort. The primary area contention involved
the highly putrescible nature of the crab and scallop scraps and the odors that
could emanate from the projects. These concerns were largely eliminated as
a result of two "open houses" conducted during the project. Once the public
got a chance to actually visit the site and collect samples of the compost,
concerns about potential odor problems largely vanished. The need to involve
all interested parties was clearly demonstrated and is highly advised for any
organization considering similar demonstration projects.
RELATED MATERIALS
"Composting and Using By-Products from Blue Crab and Calico Scallpo
Processing Plants in Florida", Sea Grant Report # 107, provides a detailed look
at the project. For further information, please contact James Cato, Florida Sea
Grant College Program, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110400, Gainesville,
FL 32611-0400. 904-392-5870/904-392-5113 Fax
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
CAMFOBNIA
CITY OF ARCATA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AND MARSH
AND WILDLIFE SANCTUARY BY JULIE MEANDER
BACKGROUND
The Arcata Integrated Wastewater Treatment Facility and Marsh and Wildlife
Sanctuary are located in the City of Arcata at the north end of Humboldt Bay
in northern California. The project was completed in 1986 and is an on-going
operation.
PURPOSE
Arcata's Wastewater Treatment Facility uses a unique approach to wastewater
treatment which includes wetland wastewater treatment, wetland enhance-
ment and salmon ranching. The project
uses a marsh system to provide second-
ary treatment for the City's waste water,
wildlife habitat and passive public recre-
ation. ,
METHODOLOGY
Once primary treatment is completed the
sewage is sent to three oxidation ponds
where secondary treatment begins. From
there the sewage enters three treatment marshes that are located at the
treatment plant. After flowing through the treatment marshes the sewage is
disinfected and pumped over to the Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary.
Secondary treatment is completed as the sewage flows through over thirty
acres of marsh before it is returned to the plant for final disinfection and
discharge to Humboldt Bay. The marshes are pan of the 154-acre Arcata
Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary that includes two additional wetland restoration
projects. There is also a small fish-rearing operation at the treatment plant that
utilizes treated sewage. The aquaculture facility is operated by Humboldt
State University under a cooperative agreement with the City.
By 1978 the citizens of Arcata had
organized to call for a local inte-
grated waste water treatment plant
that would utilize the natural treat-
ment process of marshes.
The project was developed as an alternative to a proposed regional sewage
facility that would have increased sewer rates by 70%. Possible negative
impacts on agricultural lands and in Humboldt Bay if the buried sewer lines
ruptured were also of concern. Since the City had been conducting experi-
ments using nutrients in the sewage to raise young salmon, the loss of waste
water as a potential resource was also of concern.
KEY PLAYERS '
.!
In 1974 the State of California enacted a policy that prohibited discharge into
California's bays and estuaries unless the applicant could prove that the
activity would "enhance" the resource.
The following year the Humboldt Bay
Wastewater Authority proposed a re-
gional facility that would discharge into
the ocean and was estimated to cost over
$25 million. By 1978 the citizens of
Arcata had organized to call for a local
integrated waste water treatment plant
that would utilize the natural treatment
process of marshes. Soon after that the
City obtained State approval to demon-
strate "enhancement" with a two year pilot project designed to treat 10% of
Arcata's wastewater. During this same time the City worked with the
California Coastal Conservancy to complete the original 75 acre Arcata Marsh
and Wildlife Sanctuary. The Sanctuary was completed in 1981. At that time
the marshes were fed with well water. In 1983 the State Water Resources
Control Board finally gave the City permission to upgrade its wastewater
treatment plant, using wetland treatment/enhancement units. Discharge to
Humboldt Bay was approved since the State determined that the project
provided enhancement for wildlife and opportunities for research and educa-
tion. The integrated wastewater treatment plant was completed in 1986 at a
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
cost of $7.1 million. The project was financed using 75% federal, 12.5% state
and 12.5 % local funds.
LESSONS LEARNED
Citizen involvement, municipal support and state and federal assistance were
all critical components to making this project a success. Its ongoing success
is due to the City's commitment to operate the Marsh and Wildlife sanctuary
for wastewater treatment, wildlife habitat and public recreation. Continuing
volunteer support from the community is another important factor in the
project's ongoing success. A more detailed list of contributors can be found
on the enclosed brochure.
RELATED MATERIALS
For more information, please contact Mi Neander, Resource Specialist, City
of Arcata Department of Environmental Services,736 F Street, Arcata, CA
95521. 707-822-8184
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
COASTAL GRASSLAND RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA STYLE
BY CHARLETTE EPIFANIO
BACKGROUND
Coastal Marin is part of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary,
internationally recognized as rare and valuable wildlife habitat A significant
threat to the waterbody is increasing levels of inputs of nutrients, especially
nitrogen, which could lead to over-enrichment - eutrophication. One of the
possible sources of nitrogen-based nutrients is from agricultural practices;
nutrients are often released into the adjacent waterbody in runoff from tilled
fields.
PURPOSE
Use of a no-till seed drill helps reduce
nitrogen pollution from animals and also
soil erosion that ends up as sediment in
the creeks that empty into Estero de San
Antonio and Tom ales Bay, Marin County,
California. The no-till drill is used to
improve or restore grasslands, and con-
vert annual cropfields to permanent
grassfields.
growth to even slight amounts of moisture making them more drought
tolerant. Deep roots also help improve soil structure and fertility. As a result,
productivity and quality of forage is higher, and because they stay greener
longer, they help extend the grazing season. The perennials' massive root
structure and typically dense growth habit also better protect the soil from
erosion. These qualities, in turn, improve water infiltration and nitrogen
uptake, thus helping reduce sediment and nitrogen runoff pollution.
After only two planting seasons, some 1000 acres of farmland have been
seeded and plans are already underway
for the Fall 1993 planting season.
Compared to conventional methods,
the drill saves time and reduces the
seeding rate by 30-50% making res-
toration more cost effective.
KEY PLAYERS
When done in conjunction with proper use and management, the no-till
planting program can hasten the restoration of the perennial type grasslands
that once dominated California. Native perennial grasses enhance biological
diversity and many are more drought tolerant and less invasive than introduced
perennials typically seeded. Several native perennial grasses are now com-
mercially available.
Whether native or introduced, seeding perennial grasses and legumes are an
improvement over the exotic annual grasses commonly present. Because roots
of perennial grasses remain alive all year, they're able to respond with new
Marin County Resource Conservation
District (MCRCD) and Marin Agricul-
tural Land Trust (MALT) bought the
$ 12,OOOTye Pasture Pleaser drill in 1991
to offer to ranchers and farmers to im-
prove vegetation on the 119,000 acres of
Marin County farmlands. As part of the cooperative effort of this program, Pt.
Reyes National Seashore, University Cooperative Extension, and Soil Con-
servation Service rangeland specialists work with ranchers on seeding and
grazing management recommendations.
METHODOLOGY
Unlike conventional seed drills, the no-till drill can seed without disturbing the
soil thus reducing erosion. The drill, which can plant up to 15 acres a day,
lightly disks, seeds and fertilizes, and thinly packs the seed in one pass! The
soil is not disturbed because the drill contains several coulter blades that cut
a small slot directly into existing vegetation into which the seed is dropped.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
MARINE SANCTUARY
EUTROPHICATION
Also, because the soil surface is not disturbed, moisture is conserved which
promotes greater seedling success. Compared to conventional methods, the
drill saves time and reduces the seeding rate by 30-50% making restoration
more cost effective.
LESSONS LEARNED
One of the lessons learned from this program is that restoration of private
grasslands can be accomplished on a broad scale if landowners are interested
enough to become involved. It is apparent that when interested, landowners
will seek out use of a program or tool that is helpful to them. Landowners
become interested when they think there is a reasonable way that they can
improve the resource and benefit their business. Another lesson learned is that
follow-up assistance from a grassland specialist is important for providing
information and enthusiasm for proper management of improved or restored
grasslands.
RELATED MATERIALS
Oilman, David; "No-Till Seed Drill Available to Landowners". California
Farmer Magazine. Vol. 274,No.l8. November 23,1991. p.23. .
Brewster, Rod; "Putting Some Thrill in 'Till'". Argus-Courier Newspaper,
Petaluma, CA. Vol. 137, No. 72. November 14,1991. p. 1.
Mclsaac, Don; "No-Till Drill". Marin County Resource Conservation District
Annual Report 1992.
Author unknown; "No-Till Seeding Drill Available". Marin County Resource
Conservation District Annual Report 1991.
'Tye Pasture Pleaser Final Setup and Operator's Manual". The Tye Company,
Lockney.TX. 1989. 14pgs.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
CALiTORNIA
SONOMA BAYLANDS: CREATING AN ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT OUT OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY DREDGING CRISIS BY LAUREL MARCUS
BACKGROUND
The San Francisco Bay provides two important economic resources: maritime
commerce and waterfront industry, and an estuary/wetland complex of
worldwide significance. Over the past fifteen years, these two types of
resources and their proponents have been at odds, resulting in a major
shutdown of channel deepening and maintenance dredging projects. For the
past two decades, Bay Area ports disposed of their dredged material at the in-
bay Alcatraz aquatic disposal site. The site is not only filling up, but in-bay
disposal is cited as a prime factor in the
decline of fish species in the bay.
PURPOSE
Ocean disposal of dredged material is
also problematic. Fishermen and envi-
ronmental groups have blocked near-
shore disposal and are critically evaluat-
ing a deep ocean site, sixty miles outside
the Golden Gate. All these issues regard-
ing aquatic disposal of dredged material
point to the need for a different strategy. In addition, disposing of dredged
material in either the ocean or the bay completely misses the opportunity to put
this material to beneficial uses. The Sonoma Baylands tidal marsh project is
located on a 322-acre diked historic wetland located along the northern
shoreline of the bay next to the Petaluma River mouth. This region of the Bay
saw extensive reclamation of tidal wetlands in the late 1800s to create
agricultural land for hay production. The site is still in hay production and
retains little wetland character or value. As the site was diked, drained and kept
dry, it gradually subsided. The average elevation is now four feet below sea
level.
By using dredged material, the time
frame for development of the veg-
etated marsh habitats needed by these
endangered species could be reduced
METHODOLOGY
The California Coastal Conservancy and the Sonoma Land Trust purchased
this site and completed a design for a marsh which would provide wetland
habitat for the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse and California clapper
rail. If a perimeter levee were built and the site opened up to the tide, it would
remain an open water basin for many years. Natural sedimentation, although
high in this area of the bay, would require 40 to 50 years to reach elevations
suitable for vegetated marsh. The endangered salt marsh harvest mouse and
clapper rail both depend upon vegetated
tidal marsh habitat and might not ever
benefit from such a long-term restora-
tion project.
By using dredged material, the time
frame for development of the vegetated
marsh habitats needed by these endan-
gered species could be reduced to a mere
ten years. This difference in restoration
time forthe dredged material marsh over
the natural sedimentation marsh clearly
favors the endangered species. Using clean dredged material to build marshes
also provides a site for placement of 2.5 to 3 million cubic yards of dredged
material. To create a successful marsh restoration project and protect the site
from over filling a maximum fill elevation of +2.0 ft. National Goedetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD) was identified. This elevation is well below those
which sustain vegetated marsh and allows forthe development of tidal sloughs
to create a healthy, well drained system.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
DREDGED MATERIAL
KEY PLAYERS
As with most crisis situations, a new idea which can serve the purposes of both
opposing factions can quickly gain support and bring divergent interests
together. The Sonoma Baylands has provided a much needed answer for
disposal of bay dredged material. The Port of Oakland, Bay Area Congres-
sional delegation, labor unions, shipping lines, fishermen and environmental-
ists all have expressed their support.
LESSONS LEARNED
Unfortunately, the law which authorizes most dredging projects-the Water
Resources Development Act, or WRDA, as well as national Corps of Engi-
neers policy does not favor projects such as the Sonoma Baylands. All the
costs of site acquisition and on-site preparation must be borne by the local
sponsor. In addition, when the Corps identifies the "National Economic
Development Alternative" or the NED for the dredging project, it is likely to
choose the cheapest aquatic disposal option available. All the costs for placing
the dredge material at the Baylands which exceed this cheap option must also
be paid for by the local sponsor. This type of approach fails to recognize the
environmental benefits garnered from wetland restoration using dredged
material or the environmental degradation caused by aquatic disposal. To
remedy this problem, Congress authorized the Sonoma Baylands project in the
1992 WRDA and directed the Corps to build it. Continued persistence at local
state and federal levels appears to be convincing the Corps of the benefits of
this approach.
RELATED MATERIALS
For additional information, please contact Laurel Marcus at the California
Coastal Conservancy, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA 94612.
510-286-1015/510-286-0470 Fax
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
CALTF&HNIA
HUNTINGTON WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT
BY
_
HOLDERMAN
BACKGROUND
The Huntington Wetlands cover approximately 160 acres at the mouth of the
Santa Ana River in Orange County, California. Although the project site is only
24.9 acres in size, it is part of the 160-acre degraded wetland known as the
Huntington Wetlands. The site is bounded by the Pacific Coast Highway and the
Orange County Talbert Valley Flood Control Channel. Historically, the
wetlands covered a much more extensive area, over 2,000 acres. Encroachment
from development and channelization of the Santa Ana River are the primary
reasons for the decline in wetland acreage.
Lack of tidal flushing has degraded wetland habitats in the Huntington Wetlands.
In 1978, tidal action was temporarily restored by installing culverts and excavat-
ing channels. The work was carried out as mitigation for an Orange County
Flood Control project. Restoring tidal action greatly improved the health of the
wetland. When the culverts were removed six months later (per the mitigation
agreement), wetland habitat quickly declined.
Although the site did not experience tidal flushing for many years, it still retained
many wetland values. In 1986, the California Coastal Conservancy (the
Conservancy) awarded a grant to the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy
(HB WC), a local nonprofit organization, to prepare a wetland restoration plan for
the 24.9 acre site owned by Caltrans, the Orange County Flood Control District,
and the Orange County Sanitation District. The restoration plan took into
consideration projects proposed by these three public agencies and the Army
Corps of Engineers on adjoining properties.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this project was to restore tidal flushing to the project site and to
create the right elevations for optimal salt marsh development and use. The plan
proposed doing this by creating intertidal soil conditions suitable to establish and
maintain a diverse salt marsh flora; providing mudflat and channel bank habitats
for intertidal invertebrates; providing refuge area for juvenile fish; and increas-
ing suitable habitat for waterbirds including the endangered Least tem, the
California clapper rail, and Belding's Savannah sparrow. The Conservancy and
HBWC also sought, given the sites urban location and land ownership, to
increase public access and interpretation of the wetland by constructing walk-
ways and observation areas, and to establish a habitat mitigation bank to
compensate for the impacts resulting from adjoining public works projects. This
last objective was crucial for gaining the landowners participation in the v/etiand
restoration process, since they were the lead agencies for adjacent public works
projects.
METHODOLOGY
The Huntington Wetland Restoration Project began in 1986, when the Conser-
vancy gave the HBWC $40,000 to prepare a wetland restoration plan for the
project site. In April 1987, the Conservancy approved the restoration plan and
gave the HBWC another grant for $459,000 to acquire, in fee, 17 acres of the
wetlands owned by Caltrans, and to begin plan implementation. In addition to
these funds, Orange County Flood Control and Orange County Sanitation
Districts contributed land to the project (i.e. conservation easements) and the
flood district contributed over $ 1 million in cash to construct a new flood channel
through the wetlands. The County flood district and Caltrans also purchased
wetland and sand dune mitigation credits created by the HBWC's project.
The HBWC operates and maintains the completed project and is required to
submit annual monitoring reports to the Conservancy for at least five years. The
first two years of reporting have shown a significant increase in fish and
invertebrate use of the site and a significant increase in water quality and tidal
flushing. An independent evaluation of this project (May 1993) also cone luded
that the site has been restored to tidal action resulting in a substantial increase in
fish and wildlife habitat and use.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
KEY PLAYERS
The number of people involved in this project ranged between 20 and 500
people depending on which of the three stages of the project you are
examining. There was tremendous public involvement in the land use plan
(LUP) phase of the project, which required the participation of the City of
Huntington Beach and the regulatory agencies. The LUP covered the entire
160 acre area and the main players were the City, the Conservancy, and the five
major landowners (i.e. Caltrans, OC Flood Control, Southern California
Edition, and two private parties). The issues resolved were the extent of
wetland acreage and buffer, development potential, and types of appropriate
development. The LUP was approved and certified by the City and the
California Coastal Commission in the Fall of 1986.
"I
In the restoration project design phase, there was a much smaller group of
people involved. Those agencies participating in the wetland design included
the HBWC, the Conservancy, and the state and federal resource and regula-
tory agencies (i.e. CA Fish and Game, CA Coastal Commission, USFWS,
NMFS, COE, etc.). Similarly, plan implementation also involved a small core
group. The major players were the Conservancy, HBWC, and the landowners
(i.e. Caltrans, OC Flood Control, and OC Sanitation District). The focus of this
group was on developing the necessary agreements to facilitate the land-cash-
credit transactions (i.e. mitigation bank) to carry out the restoration project.
The key to successfully implementing the restoration project and securing
local approval of the land use plan, which restricted use on much of the 160
acres for conservation purposes, was the community's strong desire to
preserve and protect the wetlands. Another key was that 50% of the
landowners in the wetlands needed wetland mitigation to proceed with their
projects. Normally, these owners would have opposed wetland creation,
especially on their property. But when the restoration project satisfied their
needs, reduced project costs, and incorporated their design into a wetland
enhancement project, they willingly supported the restoration project and
participated in the land-cash-credit transfer arrangement proposed by the
Conservancy.
LESSONS LEARNED
The major lesson learned is to make sure you have local support for your
project. Getting a few landowners "on-board" is particularly beneficial in
carrying out a project and diffusing project opposition. Also, allow adequate
time to meet with all parties and to resolve those issues which can be address
with relative ease before developing a wetland restoration project.
RELATED MATERIALS
For further information, please contact Reed Holderman at the California
Coastal Conservancy, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100, Oakland, CA 94612.
510-286-4183/510-286-0470 Fax
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
REDUCTION OF ESTUARINE NUTRIENT LOADING: NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS
REMOVAL IN COASTAL SWAMP AREAS BY EDWARD J. KUENZLER
BACKGROUND ,
Population growth and economic development cause increasing nutrient
releases to streams and estuaries from agriculture, urbanization, and industri-
alization. More nutrients enter headwater streams in North Carolina than
reach the estuaries, partly because of removal by swamps and bottomlands
which border Coastal Plain streams, wetlands which are thus interposed
between the watershed nutrient sources and the estuarine sinks. These
wetlands along streams, termed riparian wetlands, normally have wide, flat
floodplains which provide large areas of soil surface for processing nutrient
loads. Nutrients not removed from the streams before reaching the estuary
contribute to nuisance algal blooms, hypoxic bottom waters, decreased fish
and shellfish harvests, and other problems. x
PURPOSE *
The goal of this study was to increase understanding of the efficiency with
which Coastal Plain riparian wetlands strip out nitrogen and phosphorus from
municipal wastewater effluents.
METHODOLOGY
The initial phase of this study was devoted to selection of sites representative
of the forested wetlands impacted by municipal wastewaters in eastern North
Carolina. A preliminary list of 35 municipalities was provided by the N.C.
Division of Environmental Management. This list was shortened and sites
were ranked based on information gathered on field trips to the wastewater
treatment plants and associated streams and wetlands. A workshop with
forested-wetland authorities of the Southeast provided perspectives useful in
making final selection of study sites. The differences among the selected sites
in the type of wastewater treatment, in the size and water quality of the
receiving stream, and in the nature of the wetland system along the stream were
representative of the variability in these factors in eastern North Carolina.
Two swamp-stream sites were selected for intensive study: Bridgers Creek,
which receives wastewater from the town of Rich Square, and Deep Creek,
which similarly serves Scotland Neck. Samples of water were collected at
about ten stations above, at, and below wastewater outfalls every three weeks
for two years. A more extensive study utilized seven additional sites near the
towns of Clarkton, Pink Hill, LaGrange, Walstonburg, Enfield, Macclesfield,
and Lewiston-Woodville. They were sampled only quarterly for one year to
determine variability among bottomland systems. On the field trips, measure-
ments were made of water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and
pH. At the two intensive sites, streajn discharges were also estimated. Grab
samples of water were collected and returned to the laboratory for deteimina-
tion of chloride, nitrate, ammonium, total N, phosphate, and total P concentra-
tions. The chloride concentrations were used to correct for in-stream dilution,
permitting calculation of net downstream changes in nutrient concentrations.
The water of the receiving streams, in most cases, had low concentrations of
chloride and nutrients. The effluent generally increased in these parameters
just below the outfall, but concentrations decreased again downstream more
rapidly than expected from dilution of chloride. Such decreases which exceed
the rate of simple solution represent net nutrient removal. Median net removal
efficiencies for ammonium, total N, phosphate, and total P within about 4km
of the Rich Square and Scotland Neck outfalls ranged from about 50% to 100%
of the amounts in the effluent. About 80% of nitrate was removed in the Deep
Creek wetland below Scotland Neck. Rich Square effluent had very low
concentrations of nitrate; nitrate changes relative to the amount in the effluent
ranged from very high to very low, with no significant median change telow
the outfall. The data base was small, but the sites in the extensive study also
showed a pattern of net removals in the downstream swamp-stream systems.
Ammonium removal was generally poor and inconsistent at the extensive
sites, especially where effluent concentrations were low.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
EUTROPHICATION
The efficiencies of nutrient removal at the intensive sites were generally
similar to removals which have been measured in other N.C. Coastal Plain
swamp streams. Furthermore, there was general agreement with results for
other Southeastern states that riparian wetlands effectively trap sediments and
nutrients from agricultural and municipal sources delaying and reducing their
transport to the coast.
Good water quality in North Carolina's estuaries is important because of their
economic, recreational, and aesthetic values. The forested bottomlands and
swamps along Coastal Plain streams are multipurpose natural areas. Because
of demonstrated capabilities of riparian forested wetlands to reduce nutrient
loadings to the estuaries, it is critical that both the areal extent and the
functional properties of the riparian wetlands be maintained. They must be
protected particularly from channelization and conversion to farmlands, a
process which effectively destroys them. Consideration must also be given to
protection from adverse changes to vegetative structure and soil properties, for
example through unwise forestry practices, which will decrease nutrient
removal capabilities. Finally, the riparian forested wetlands must be protected
from damage caused by nutrient overloading. They appear to function will in
removing modest amounts of nutrients, for example below properly-function-
ing wastewater treatment plants. However, heavier loads may exceed their
removal capacity, allowing nutrients to continue downstream, and imposition
of excessive loads may adversely change the wetland itself. The methods and
data from this study may help development of relatively inexpensive methods
for assessing wetland nutrient-removal abilities so that year-to-year changes
in removal efficiency of many streams can be determined.
LESSONS LEARNED
Additional research is needed regarding the relationships between nutrient
loading and wetland functioning. One study which should be undertaken is
measurement of the amount of change and potential damage to wetlands by
municipal wastewater loads. It is likely that the additional nutrients, and in
many cases the constant minimum stream flows, provided by the effluent will
affect plant species composition. These changes attributable to the effluent
probably also markedly affect the soil fauna, microbial populations, and
perhaps vegetation structure, especially close below the outfall. A study of the
rate of accumulation of phosphorus and other elements in the soils and biota
below the outfall would be valuable. How long does it take under given waste
loads for the soil to become so enriched that further removal ceases? Studies
are also recommended having to do with land use in the watershed. For
example, does increased concentration of suspended sediments from soil
erosion increase or decrease the efficiency of removal from phosphorus from
wastewater? How does logging of bottomland timber affect trapping of
nutrients from agricultural and municipal sources? Finally, incorporation of
the results into models of nutrient flux from the watershed to the estuaries will
help predict maximum permissible wastewater discharges without damaging
swamp functioning, thereby protecting estuarine water quality while urban-
ization of the Coastal Plain is increasing. Studies such as these will ultimately
aid in making management decisions regarding the importance of wetlands to
water quality.
RELATED MATERIALS
For additional materials, please contact the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
Study Office, Department of Health and Natural Resources, 512 North
Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726. 919-733-0314
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
NoWR CAROLINA
ATLANTIC WHITE CEDAR WETUVNDS RESTORATION
BY L,Ki, *'MiKir GANTT
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Atlantic White Cedar Wetland Restoration Project is to
restore wetland hydrology and Atlantic White Cedar to twenty-five acres of
cleared, ditched, and drained wetlands to revitalize wildlife and water quality
attributes. Atlantic White Cedar is a wetland tree highly prized for its lumber
that once covered vast acreage in coastal North Carolina but has been logged
so extensively that it now exists only in isolated fragments.
BACKGROUND
The restoration of hydrology on 392 acres
and the planting of 8,000 Atlantic White
Cedar on twenty-five acres was accom-
plished in three months. The seedlings
were purchased for $2,000 and the ditch
plugging cost $2,400.
KEY PLAYERS
Atlantic White Cedar is a wetland
tree highly prized for its lumber but
has been logged so extensively that it
now exists only in isolated fragments.
The site was a Farmers Home easement
that had been transferred to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. The
Service's Albemarle-Pamlico Bay-Estuary Program recognized the opportu-
nity to restore these wetlands and initiated and coordinated this project.
Weyerhauser, North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, and North Caro-
lina State University provided technical expertise on the tree planting and the
U.S Soil Conservation Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided
guidance on how the ditches should be plugged to restore wetland hydrology.
METHODOLOGY
Weyerhauser notified the Service of the availability of the seedlings. The
Service recognized the opportunity and made funding available to purchase
seedlings and restore hydrology. Atlantic White Cedar seedlings are not
normally available, and this availability constituted a special opportunity.
LESSONS LEARNED ,
The major obstacle in this example was the very short timeframe in which
work had to be completed. Seedlings
had to be planted before the onset of dry,
hot, summer weather and needed to be
accomplished quickly to ensure that
planted seedlings had adequate soil
moisture. This project proceeded
smoothly because Atlantic White Cedar
Wetland Restoration is broadly sup-
ported by the government, environmen-
tal groups and the timber industry.
RELATED MATERIALS
Laderman, A.D.; 1989 "The Ecology of the Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands:
A Community Profile". US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85
(7.21). 114 p.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
THE CASCO BAY EXPERIENCE
BY RAY HAUL
PURPOSE
The U.S. EPA and many state environmental agencies have discovered an
increasing need for integrated geographic information management solutions
to assist analysts and decision makers. For more than a decade Geographic
Information System (CIS) technology has evolved to provide useful tools to
organize, access, and maintain large vol-
umes of geographic information. To
realize the full potential of this technol-
ogy, systems developers work with envi-
ronmental managers to identify specific
application requirements to satisfy user
needs. In support of its Ocean Data and
Evaluation System (ODES), EPA's Of-
fice of Wetlands, Oceans and Water-
sheds (OWOW),formerly, the Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP),
has coordinated with Maine's Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection (DEP)
to implement a GIS for the Casco Bay
watershed.
planning agencies, and other state agencies. For OMEP, the resulting GIS
would also serve as a prototype to encourage the development of similar
applications for other estuaries, ideally, utilizing the existing ARC/II^JFO
application shell.
KEY PLAYERS
The ARC/INFO application provides
decision makers with the ability to
readily assess integrated coastal envi-
ronmental data and identify the im-
pact of point source dischargers on
critical marine habitats.
BACKGROUND
Following the designation of Casco Bay, Maine, to the National Estuary
Program (NEP) in 1989, OMEP and DEP contracted for the design, develop-
ment, and implementation of a GIS to evaluate the impact of pollutant
discharges on shellfish beds and other critical habitat areas within the Casco
Bay. For DEP, the primary goal of this project was to provide a GIS tool to
meet the information needs of scientists, managers, and policy analysts
representing DEP's water bureau, the University of Maine at Orono, regional
Project work began with the collection
of existing marine and estuary data of
the Casco Bay and Fore River Water-
shed study areas for the conversion of
geographic coverages. This informa-
tion includes shoreline details, wetland
habitats, shellfish growing areas, shell-
fish classifications, critical habitat sites,
spawning areas, permitted industrial
outfalls, hydrology, highways and roads,
and political boundaries. The data col-
lection effort required the cooperation
of several organizations to assemble the
raw information into a format suitable
for digitization. During this phase of the
project, these organizations performed the following activities to gather the
necessary NEP information to develop the appropriate geographic overlays:
DEP assembled historical monitoring data for Casco Bay, which included
results for benthic community sampling, bio-toxicity testing, sediment
analysis, and metal detection;
The Soils Conservation Service supplied digitized soil coverages for the
study area;
DEP obtained U.S. Geological Survey maps of the study area for subse-
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
CIS
quent digitization;
The Greater Portland Council of Governments organized, assessed, and
digitized data relating to solid waste landfills, shellfish resource invento-
ries, underground storage tanks, and wetland areas;
EPA provided National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOA A)
coastline maps and additional data from the Permit Compliance System
(PCS) relating to shellfish resources, upwelling zones, aquaculture lease-
sites, spawning areas, bird-feeding areas, and fisheries harvesting sites;
and
Contractor support obtained and converted the remaining GIS data layers
covering the Casco Bay region.
METHODOLOGY
i >
Once the critical geographic data had been gathered and converted, the data
was then ready for incorporation into the Casco Bay applicatioa To develop
the Casco Bay GIS baseline, EPA and DEP expanded and enhanced the
capabilities of an existing application: the ODES/GIS Connection. Originally
developed to evaluate marine monitoring data for Boston Harbor, this menu-
driven application provides remote access to ODES data for graphic display
and query of data pertaining to marine monitoring stations, permitted facili-
ties, and other geographic data. To adapt the ODES/GIS application to the
DEP's systems environment, DEP, through contractor support, enhanced the
automatic transfer facility to ensure that all Casco Bay data stored in ODES
could be easily transferred electronically between ODES and the Casco Bay
GIS. Once all of the required data overlays were incorporated into the GIS,
the menu-driven interface was redesigned to provide access to these informa-
tion sources. With the completion of these tasks, the Casco Bay GIS was
installed on a local work station.
The resulting system successfully incorporated the capabilities of the existing
Boston Harbor GIS application to provide DEP with tools to effectively
manage its Casco Bay marine and estuary data. But, more importantly, the
Casco Bay GIS project successfully brought together several environmental
agencies to share resources and expertise. In close collaboration, each of these
agencies contributed valuable information for exchange via the GIS applica-
tion. Through continued commitment, an effective application was realized
to meet the varied goals of the key players.
LESSONS LEARNED
Since the development of the Casco Bay GIS, EPA and DEP have realized
significant benefits. The ARC/INFO application provides decision makers
with the ability to readily assess integrated coastal environmental data and
identify the impact of point source dischargers on critical marine habitats.
Scientists may use this tool to perform analysis and produce maps showing the
spatial relationships of widely varied geographic data types. These maps also
assist management and policy staff in relating data from different program
areas for decision making purposes. The Casco Bay GIS project successfully
establishes the model for the development of effective tools to support
environmental monitoring.
RELATED MATERIALS
For additional information about the Casco Bay GIS Experience, please
contact Ray Hall at US EPA, 401M Street SW, (WH-556-F), Washington, DC
20460. 202-260-1998/202-260-9960 Fax
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
-------
LISTING BY AUTHOR
LAST NAME FIRST NAME TITLE
PAGE
Allen, Deb Mitchell Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Study 48
Blake, Pam Concerned Citizens Protecting the Coquille River and Estuary 36
Bond, Robin C. Hanauma Bay Management Plan .. 68
Breaux, Andree M. Policy Considerations for Recycling Wastewater Through Hydrologically Altered Wetlands 40
Brockbank, Marcia Multicultural Anglers Project 6
Canning, Douglas J. Washington Coastal Erosion Management Strategy 42
Cato, James C. Composting By-Products from Blue Crab and Scallop Processing Plants 88
Crago, Tracey I. Falmouth Pond Watchers Water Quality Monitoring Program 14
Crago, Tracey I. Shorewatch Video Series for Cable Television 16
Denninger Melanie North Richmond Shoreline 74
Day, John W. Policy Considerations for Recycling Wastewater Through Hydrologically Altered Wetlands 40
Dodd, Randall Total Maximum Daily Load Case Study: Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary 84
Epifanio, Charlette Coastal Grassland Restoration, California Style : 92
Erickson, Lee Sonoma County Wetlands Enhancement Program 60
Fersner, Joe Stormwater Management on the Isle of Palms Connector 86
Gantt, L.K. Atlantic White Cedar Wetland Restoration 100
Giordano, Joan Videos Demonstrating North Carolina's Computer-Based CIS : 12
Goehringer, Dale D. Ecologically Based Environmental Management 52
Good, Bill Marsh Terracing 80
Hall, Ray The Casco Bay Experience 102
Herz, Michael Baykeeper: Prototype for Citizen Environmental Protection .28
Holderman, Reed Huntington Wetlands Restoration Project '. 96
Hoppe, Mary Watershed Management initiatives of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program 64
Hottman, Eva Equipment Buy-Down Project, Maumee River Basin 50
Howes, Brian L. Ecologically Based Environmental Management 52
Hoy, Valerie F. Reduction of Foam Debris: Foam Encapsulation for Floating Structures in Oregon 76
APPENDIX
-------
LISTING BY AUTHOR
Hunter,
Hyman,
Judd,
Kawasaki,
Knight,
Kuenzler,
Locklin,
Marcus,
Marcus,
McEvoy,
McEvoy,
McShane,
Miele,
Mohr,
Neander,
Recht,
Recht,
Recht,
Robertson,
Sands,
Schneider,
Schneider,
Sevin,
Shead,
Shead,
Shipley,
Simpson,
Wolniakowski,
Zamm,
Laura Chollas Creek Watershed Protection Project 38
Rick Neary Lagoon:Neglected Marsh Restored to Wildlife Refuge 54
Marcy Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program ..8
Lillian Y. A Management Strategy to Protect an Endangered Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem ;..56
Robert L. Natural Wetlands for Control of Coastal Water Quality 78
Edward J. Reduction of Estuarine Nutrient Loading 98
Linda Marine Resource Mitigation Program for the Impacts of a Coastal Nuclear Power Plant 62
Laurel Sonoma Baylands: Creating an Environmental Benefit Out of the San Francisco Bay Dredging Crises 94
Laurel Tomales Bay Watershed Restoration .:... 72
Elizabeth Mass Bays Local Action: Local Governance Committees 70
Elizabeth Wellfleet Harbor Mini-Bay Project 46
Laura Marine Sanctuary Watch.. 26
Diann J. Home Guide for Medical Waste Disposal : 18
Alan Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Project 66
Julie City of Arcata Wastewater Treatment Facility i 90
Fran Fish Net Collection and Recycling '. 20
Fran Fishermen Promote Habitat Education and Protection 24
Fran Marine Debris Collection and Recycling Program 22
Dena Neary Lagoon:Neglected Marsh Restored to Wildlife Refuge 54
Laurie The Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act Program ; 44
Susan Mass Bays Local Action: Local Governance Committees 70
Susan Wellfleet Harbor Mini-Bay Project 46
Jennifer Officer Snook Marine Project 10
Linda Cooperative Habitat Creation Efforts in Galveston Bay: Restoration and Construction of Coastal Wetlands 82
Linda Galveston Bay Foundation: The Estuary Sampling Team (GBF TEST) 34
Frank S. A Citizen Pollution Reporting System 32
Kathy The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Story 58
Krystyna Concerned Citizens Protecting the Coquille River and Estuary ........: 36
Michael Training Student Organizers Local Waters Program's Local Waters Initiative 30
APPENDIX
-------
LISTING BY KEYWORD
KEYWORD
Citizen Monitoring
TITLE
PAGE
Coastal Erosion
Dredged Material
Eutrophication
Fisheries
GIS
A Citizen Pollution Reporting System '. 32
Baykeeper. Prototype for Citizen Environmental Protection .-. 28
Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program 8
Falmouth Pond Watchers Water Quality Monitoring Program 14
Galveston Bay Foundation: The Estuary Sampling Team (GBF TEST) 34
Marine Sanctuary Watch : 26
Training Student Organizers Local Waters Program's Local Waters Initiative 30
Washington Coastal Erosion Management Strategy 42
Sonoma Baylands: Creating an Environmental BenefifOut of the San Francisco Bay Dredging Crises 94
Coastal Grassland Restoration, California Style 92
Reduction of Estuarine Nutrient Loading, 98
Total Maximum Daily Load Case Study: Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary 84
Composting By-Products from Blue Crab and Scallop Processing Plants 88
Fish Net Collection and Recycling ..; 20
Fishermen Promote Habitat Education and Protection 24
Marine Debris Collection and Recycling Program 22
Marine Resource Mitigation Program for the Impacts of a Coastal Nuclear Power Plant 62
Multicultural Anglers Project...: 6
The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Story 58
Wellfleet Harbor Mini-Bay Project , : 46
The Cascp Bay Experience '. 102
Videos Demonstrating North Carolina's Computer Based GIS 12
APPENDIX
-------
LISTING BY KEYWORD
KEYWORD
Habitat Management
TITLE
PAGE
A Management Strategy to Protect an Endangered Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem 56
Marine Debris Fish Net Collection and Recycling ; 20
Home Guide for Medical Waste Disposal 18
Marine Debris Collection and Recycling Program 22
Reduction of Foam Debris: Foam Encapsulation for Floating Structures in Oregon 7.6
Marine Sanctuary Coastal Grassland Restoration, California Style ". 92
Marine Sanctuary Watch 28
National Estuary Program Mass Bays Local Action: Local Governance Committees , ;... 70
Multicultural Anglers Project ....6
The Casco Bay Experience 102
Videos Demonstrating North Carolina's Computer-Based GIS 12
Watershed Management Initiatives of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program 64
Wellfleet Harbor Mini-Bay Project..... 46
Nonpoint Source Pollution Equipment Buy-Down Project, Maumee River Basin 50
Mitchell Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Study 48
Public Outreach A Management Strategy to Protect an Endangered Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem :...... 56
Baykeeper. Prototype for Citizen Environmental Protection ....; 28
Fishermen Promote Habitat Education and Protection 24
Home Guide for Medical Waste Disposal 18
Multicultural Anglers Project 6
Officer Snook Marine Project -10
Shorewatch Video Series for Cable Television , 16
Videos Demonstrating North Carolina's Computer-Based GIS 12
APPENDIX
-------
LISTING BY KEYWORD
KEYWORD
TITLE
PAGE
Public Participation Chollas Creek Watershed Protection Project 38
Concerned Citizens Protecting the Coquille River and Estuary 36
Cooperative Habitat Creation Efforts in Galveston Bay: Restoration and Construction of Coastal Wetlands 82
Mass Bays Local Action: Local Governance Committees 70
Sedimentation Sonoma County Wetlands Enhancement Program 60
The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Story 58
Tomales Bay Watershed Restoration 72
1' '4
Shoreline Management North Richmond Shoreline 74
Washington Coastal Erosion Management Strategy 42
Solid Waste Composting By-Products from Blue Crab and Scallop Processing Plants :' 88
Stormwater Management Coastal Grassland Restoration, California Style , 92
Equipment Buy-Down Project, Maumee River Basin 50
Mitchell Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Study : 48
Reduction of Estuarine Nutrient Loading : 98
The Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act Program : 44
Tomales Bay Watershed Restoration 72
Total Maximum Daily Load Case Study: Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary 84
Stormwater Management on the Isle of Palms Connector 86
Video Shorewatch Video Series for Cable Television ; 16
Videos Demonstrating North Carolina's Computer-Based GIS 12
APPENDIX
-------
LISTING BY KEYWORD
KEYWORD
TITLE
PAGE
Wastewater Treatment City of Arcata Wastewater Treatment Facility . 90
Natural Wetlands for Control of Coastal Water Quality ; 78
Policy Considerations for Recycling Wastewater Through Hydrologically Altered Wetlands. 40
The Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act Program 44
«
Water Quality Chollas Creek Watershed Protection Project ... '. 38
Ecologically Based Environmental Management , 52
Mass Bays Local Action: Local Governance Committee 70
Mitchell Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Study ; : '. 48
Watershed Management Initiatives of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program , 64
Watershed Protection A Citizen Pollution Reporting System '. 1 32
Baykeeper Prototype for Citizen Environmental Protection 28
Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program 8
Chollas Creek Watershed Protection Project 38
Concerned Citizens Protecting the Coquille River and Estuary 36
Ecologically Based Environmental Management '. 52
Falmouth Pond Watchers Water Quality Monitoring Program : 14
Galveston Bay Foundation: The Estuary Sampling Team (GBF TEST) 34
Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Project 66
Hanauma Bay Management Plan :. 68
Mass Bays Local Action: Local Governance Committee , 70
Officer Snook Marine Project 10
Sonoma County Wetlands Enhancement Program 60
The Casco Bay Experience ; '. ,.-. 102
The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Story 58
Tomales Bay Watershed Restoration ..../ 72
Total Maximum Daily Load Case Study: Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary 84
APPENDIX
-------
LISTING BY KEYWORD
KEYWORD
TITLE
PAGE
Watershed Protection Training Student Organizers Local Waters Program's Local Waters Initiative 30
(continued) Watershed Management Initiatives of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program 64
Wellfleet Harbor Mini-Bay Project ...46
Wetlands Management Atlantic White Cedar Wetland Restoration <.. 100
City of Arcata Wastewater Treatment Facility < 90
Cooperative Habitat Creation Efforts in Galveston Bay: Restoration and Construction of Coastal Wetlands 82
Huntington Wetlands Restoration Project.... 96
Marine Resource Mitigation Program for the Impacts of a Coastal Nuclear Power Plant 62
Marsh Terracing 80
Natural Wetlands for Control of Coastal Water Qualjty : 78
Neary Lagoon:Neglected Marsh Restored to Wildlife Refuge 54
Policy Considerations for Recycling Wastewater Through Hydrologically Altered Wetlands 40
Reduction of Estuarine Nutrient Loading 98
Sonoma Baylands: Creating an Environmental Benefit Out of the San Francisco Bay Dredging Crises 94
Sonoma County Wetlands Enhancement Program 60
Wildlife Management Neary Lagoon:Neglected Marsh Restored to Wildlife Refuge 54
Youth Activities A Management Strategy to Protect an Endangered Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem 56
Officer Snook Marine Project : , 10
Training Student Organizers Local Waters Program's Local Waters Initiative 30
APPENDIX
-------
LISTING BY STATE
STATE
California
TITLE
PAGE
Florida
Hawaii
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
A Management Strategy to Protect an Endangered Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem : 56
Baykeeper: Prototype for Citizen Environmental Protection 28
Chbllas Creek Watershed Protection Project ; 38
City of Arcata Wastewater Treatment Facility . 90
Coastal Grassland Restoration, California Style 92
Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Project '. 66
Huntington Wetlands Restoration Project 96
Marine Resource Mitigation Program for the Impacts of a Coastal Nuclear Power Plant 62
Marine Sanctuary Watch 26
Multicultural Anglers Project 6
Neary Lagoon: Neglected Marsh Restored to Wildlife Refuge 54
North Richmond Shoreline 74
Sonoma Baylands: Creating an Environmental Benefit Out of the San Francisco Bay Dredging Crises 94
Sonoma County Wetlands Enhancement Program : 60
The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Story 58
Tomales Bay Watershed Restoration : 72
Composting By-Products from Blue Crab and Scallop Processing Plants 88
Watershed Management Initiatives of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program 64
Hanauma Bay Management Plan 68
Marsh Terracing : 80
Policy Considerations for Recycling Wastewater Through Hydrologically Altered Wetlands 40
The Casco Bay Experience .. 102
Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program :. 8
Ecologically Based Environmental Management 52.
Falmouth Pond Watchers Water Quality Monitoring Program 14
Mass Bays Local Action: Local Governance Committees 70
Shorewatch Video Series for Cable Television 14
Wellfleet Harbor Mini-Bay Project 46
APPENDIX
-------
LISTING BY STATE
STATE
Michigan
Nationwide
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
TITLE
PAGE
Ohio
Oregon
Pacific Northwest
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Mitchell Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Study 48
Officer Snook Marine Project 10
Fishermen Promote Habitat Education and Protection 24
The Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act Program 44
Training Student Organizers Local Waters Program's Local Waters Initiative 30
Atlantic White Cedar Wetland Restoration 100
Reduction of Estuarine Nutrient Loading 98
Total Maximum Daily Load Case Study: Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary 84
Videos Demonstrating North Carolina's Computer-Based CIS 12
Equipment Buy-Down Project, Maumee River Basin 50
Concerned Citizens Protecting the Coquille River and Estuary 36
Marine Debris Collection and Recycling Program 22
Reduction of Foam Debris: Foam Encapsulation for Floating Structures in Oregon 76
«
Fish-Net Collection and Recycling ; 20
Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program '. 8
Home Guide for Medical Waste Disposal 18
Natural Wetlands for Control of Coastal Water Quality 78
Storm water Management on the Isle of Palms Connector 86
A Gtizen Pollution Reporting System 32
Cooperative Habitat Creation Efforts in Galveston Bay: Restoration and Construction of Coastal Wetlands 82
Galveston Bay Foundation: The Estuary Sampling Team (GBF TEST) 34
Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program ; 8
Washington Coastal Erosion Management Strategy 42
APPENDIX
-------
AUTHOR SUMMARY
SECTION 1:
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH APPROACHES
Multicultural Anglers Project
Marcia Brockbank, Public Outreach Director
San Francisco Estuary Project
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland CA 94604-2050
510-464-7992/510-464-7970 Fax
Chesapeake Bay Qtizen Monitoring Program
Marcy Judd, Virginia Citizen Monitoring Program Coordinator
P.O. Box 1981
Richmond, VA 23216
804-775-0951/804-775-0954 Fax *
.Pg.6
,Pg.8
Officer Snook Marine Project
Jennifer Sevin, student working with the US Coast Guard
2550 Douglas Road
Coral Gables, FL 33134
305-443-3343/305-443-3033 Fax
, Pg. 10
Videos Demonstrating North Carolina's
Computer-Based Geographic Information System
Joan Giordano, Public Participation Coordinator
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study
P.O. Box 1507
Washington, DC 27889
919-946-6481/919-975-3716 Fax
.Pg. 12
Falmouth Pond Watchers Water Quality Monitoring Program.
Tracey I. Crago, Communicator
WHOI Sea Grant Program
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Woods Hole, MA 02543
508-457-2000x2665/508-457-2187 Fax
.Pg. 14
Shorewatch Video Series for Cable Television.
Tracey I. Crago, Communicator
WHOI Sea Grant Program
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Woods Hole, MA 02543
508-457-2000x2665/508-457-2187 Fax
Pg. 16
Home Guide for Medical Waste Disposal
Diann J. Miele, Environmental Scientist
Office of Health Risk Assessment
State of Rhode Island Department of Health
Cannon Building, Three Capitol Hill
Providence, RI 02908-5097
401-277-3424
Fish Net Collection and Recycling
Fran Recht, Project Manager
Habitat Education Program
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
P.O. Box 221
Depoe Bay, OR, 97341
503-765-2229/also Fax
Pg. 18
Pg. 20
APPENDIX
-------
AUTHOR SUMMARY
Marine Debris Collection and Recycling Program.
Fran Recht, Project Manager
Habitat Education Program
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
P.O. Box 221
Depoe Bay, OR 97341
503-756-2229/also Fax
Fisherman Promote Habitat Education and Protection.
Fran Recht, Project Manager
Habitat Education Program
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
P.O. Box 221
Depoe Bay, OR 97341 j
503-765-2229/also Fax
Marine Sanctuary Watch :.
Laura McShane, Executive Assistant
Save Our Shores
P.O. Box 1560
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
408-462-5660/408-462-6070 Fax
,Pg.22
, Pg. 24
.Pg.26
BayKeeper: Prototype for Citizen Environmental Protection,
Michael Herz, Executive Director
San Francisco BayKeeper
Building A, Fort Mason
San Francisco, CA 94123
415-567-4401/415-567-9715 Fax
;Pg.28
Training Student Organizers Local Waters
Program's Local Waters Initiative
Michael Zamm, Director of Environmental Education,
and Dennis Bader, Senior Environmental Educator
Council of the Environment of New York City
51 Chambers Street, Room 228
New York, NY 10007
212-788-7900/212-788-7913 Fax
Pg. 30
A Citizen Pollution Reporting System
Frank S. Shipley, Director
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
Bay Plaza One
711 West Bay Area Blvd., Suite 210
Webster, TX 77598
713-332-9937/713-332-8590 Fax
GBFTEST !
Linda Shead, Executive Director
Galveston Bay Foundation
17324-A Highway 3
Webster, TX 77598
713-332-3381/713-332-3153 Fax
Concerned Citizens Protecting the Coquille River and Estuary.
Pam Blake, Environmental Specialist,
and Krystyna Wolniakowski
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
340 North Front Street
Coos Bay.OR 97420
503-269-2721
,Pg.32
Pg. 34
Pg.36
APPENDIX
-------
AUTHOR SUMMARY
Chollas Creek Watershed Protection Project
Laura Hunter, Director, Clean Bay Campaign
San Diego Environmental Health Coalition
1717 Kettner, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92101
619-235-0281/619-232-3670 Fax
SECTION 2:
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
Policy Considerations for Recycling Waste water,
Through Hydrologically Altered Wetlands
Andree M. Breaux and John W. Day, Students
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
214-655-6692/214-655-6689 Fax
Washington Coastal Erosion Management Strategy..
Douglas J. Canning, Project Manager
Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
01ympia,WA 98504-7600
206-459-6785/206-438-7537 Fax
.Pg.38
. Pg. 40
.Pg.42
The Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act: '.
Addressing Pollution Problems in New Jersey's Coastal Zone
Laurie Sands, Principal Environmental Specialist
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Office of Land and Water Planning
401 East State Street, CN 423
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-633-1179/609-984-2147 Fax
Pg.44
Wellfleet Harbor Mini-Bay Project Pg. 46
Elizabeth McEvoy, Director of Public Outreach and Education,
and Susan Schneider, Public Information Specialist
Mass Bays Progam
100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006
Boston, MA 02202
617-727-9530x424, x408/617-727-2754 Fax
Mitchell Creek Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution Study Pg. 48
Deb Allen, Chief, Nonpoint Source Section
Surface Water Quality Division
Michigan DNR
Lansing, MI 48909
515-335-4102/517-373-9958 Fax
Equipment Buy-Down Project, Maumee River Basin, Ohio
Eva Hottman, Assistant Environmental Administrator
Ohio EPA, division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment
1800 Water Mark Drive
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149
614-644-2856/614-644-2329 Fax
. Pg- 50
APPENDIX
-------
AUTHOR SUMMARY
Ecologically Based Environmental Management: Whole Pg. 52
Ecosystem Approaches to Coastal Water Quality Problems
Brian L. Howes, Associate Scientist,
and Dale D. Goehringer, Research Associate
Biology Department
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, MA 02543
508-457-2000x2744, X2319/508-457-2169 Fax
Neary Lagoon: Neglected Marsh Restored to Wildlife Refuge Pg. 54
Rick Hyman, Coastal Planner
California Coastal Commission
725 Front Street, Suite 300
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
408-427-4863/408-427-4877 Fax
and Dena Robertson, Associate Planner
City of Santa Cruz Department of Parks
323 Church Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
408-429-3777/408-426-6851 Fax
A Management Strategy to Protect an Endangered Pg. 56
Coastal Sand Dune Ecosystem
Lillian Y. Kawasaki, General Manager
City of Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Department
200 North Spring Street, Room 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213-237-0352/213-485-9657 Fax
The Grass Valley Creek Watershed Story
Kathy Simpson
SCS Weaverville Field Office P.O. Box 1414
Weaverville, CA 96093
916-623-3991/916-623-2353 Fax
Sonoma County Wetlands Enhancement Program.
Lee Erickson, Project Engineer
Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District
874 Gravenstein Highway South, Suite 6
Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-823-3037/707-823-1436 Fax
Marine Resource Mitigation Program for the Impacts of a.
Coastal Nuclear Power Plant
Linda Locklin, Access Program Manager
California Coastal Commission
725 Front Street, Suite 300
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
408-427-4863/408-427-4877 Fax
Watershed Management Initiatives of the Tampa.
Bay National Estuary Program
Mary Hoppe, Public Information Coordinator
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
111 Seventh Avenue
South Saint Petersburg, FL 33701
813-893-2765/813-893-2767 Fax
Pg.58
Pg. 60
Pg. 62
Pg.64
APPENDIX
-------
AUTHOR SUMMARY
Garcia River Watershed Enhancement Project
Alan Mohr, District Chair
Mendocino County Resource Conservation District
405 Orchard Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
707-468-9223/707-468-1292 Fax
.Pg.66
Hanauma Bay Management Plan
Robin C. Bond, Administrative Assistant
City and County of Honolulu
Department of Parks and Recreation
650 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
808-527-6078/808-523-4823 Fax
Mass Bays Local Action: Local Governance Committees..........
Elizabeth McEvoy, Director of Public Outreach and Education
and Susan Schneider, Public Information Specialist
Mass Bays Program
100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006
Boston, MA 02202 .
617-727-9530x424, x408/617-727-2754 Fax
.Pg.68
.Pg.70
Tomales Bay Watershed Restoration.,
Laurel Marcus.Project Analyst
California State Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
510-286-1015/510-286-0470 Fax .
, Pg. 72
North Richmond Shoreline , Pg. 74
Melanie Denninger, Project Manager
California State Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
510-286-1015/510-286-0470 Fax
SECTION 3:
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES
Reduction of Foam Debris: Foam Encapsulation for Pg. 76
Floating Structures in Oregon
Valerie F. Hoy, Environmental Specialist
Oregon State Marine Board
435 Commercial Street, NE
Salem, OR 97310
503-373-1405/503-378-4597 Fax
Natural Wetlands for Control of Coastal Water Quality
Robert L. Knight, Ph.D.
CH2MHU1
7201 NW llth Place
Gainesville, FL 32605-3158
904-331-2442/904-331-5320 Fax
. Pg. 78
Marsh Terracing
Dr. Bill Good, Administrator
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Restoration Division
P.O. Box 94396
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9396
504-342-9435/504-342-9417 Fax
, Pg. 80
APPENDIX
-------
AUTHOR SUMMARY
Cooperative Habitat Creation Efforts in Galveston Bay:
Restoration and Construction of Coastal Wetlands
Linda Shead, Executive Director
Galveston Bay Foundation
17324-A Highway 3
Webster, TX 77598
713-332-3381/713-332-3153 Fax
TMDL Case Study Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary...
Randall Dodd, Research Environmental Scientist
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
919-541-6491/919-541-7155 Fax
.Pg.82
.Pg.84
Stormwater Management on the Isle of Palms Connector.
Joe Fersner, South Carolina Coastal Engineer
South Carolina Coastal Council
4130 Faber Place, Suite 300
Charleston, SC 29405
803-744-5838/803-744-5847 Fax
.Pg.86
Composting By-Products from Blue Crab and.
Scallop Processing Plants
James C. Cato, Professor & Director
Florida Sea Grant College Program
University of Florida
P.O. Box 110400
Gainesville, FL 32611-0400
904-392-5870/904-392-5113 Fax
,Pg.88
City of Arcata Wastewater Treatment Facility
and Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary
Julie Neander, Resource Specialist
City of Arcata Department of Environmental Services
736 F Street
Arcata, CA 95521
707-822-8184
. Pg. 90
Coastal Grassland Restoration, California,Style
Charlette Epifanio, Soil Conservationist
USDA Soil Conservation Service and Marin County
Resource Conservation District
USDA-SCS
1310 Redwood Way, Suite 170
Petaluma,CA 94954
707-794-1242/707-794-1536 Fax
.Pg.92
Sonoma Baylands: Creating an Environmental
Benefit out of the San Francisco Dredging Crisis
Laurel Marcus, Project Analyst
California State Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
510-286-1015/510-286-0470 Fax
,Pg.94
Huntington Wetlands Restoration Project :
Reed Holderman, Manager, Resource Enhancement Program
California State Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, Suite 1100
Oakland, CA 94612
510-286-4183/510-286-0470 Fax
. Pg. 96
APPENDIX
-------
AUTHOR SUMMARY
Reduction of Estuarine Nutrient Loading:
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal in Coastal Swamp Areas
Edward J. Kuenzler, Retired
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study Office
Department of Health and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-0314
.Pg.98
Atlantic White Cedar Wetland Restoration ....
L.K. "Mike" Gantt, US Fish and Wildlife Supervisor
US Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
919-856-4520/919-856-4556 Fax
.Pg. 100
The Casco Bay CIS Experience
Ray Hall, Oceanographer
US Environmental Protection Agency
410 M Street, SW (WH-556-F)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1998/202-260-9960 Fax
.Pg. 102
APPENDIX
-------
I INNOVATIONS IN COASTAL PROTECTION:
SEARCHING FOR UNCOMMON SOLUTIONS to COMMON PROBLEMS
Please submit your success story. Use the form below, or provide
similar information, and send to:
Darrell Brown, Acting Chief
Coastal Management Branch
EPA Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Submitted by: (Name/Address) :
Description of the Project (Providing Purpose, Background,
Key Players, Methodology, Lessons Learned and Related
Materials in the general format of the articles in this book):
Your Tide
Start date of project:
Date of submittal of this form:
End date of project:.
Title of Article/Name of project:
Your Phone #: Your Fax #:.
Location of the Project: .
------- |