OWOW FY92
National Program Meeting
May 5 - 7,1992
Washington, DC
Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds
Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Organization of
OWOW FY92 National Program Meeting
Notebook
Section
Number Title
1 Agenda
2 OWOW - Keeping in Touch
3 Customer Survey
4 Watershed Protection Approach
5 Agricultural Issues
6 Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
7 Wetlands Division
i
8 Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
9 Regions 1,2, and 3
1 0 Regions 4, 5, and 6
11 Regions 7, 8, 9, and 10
1 2 Meeting Summary
-------
I
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
FY92 National Program Meeting
The Washington Plaza Hotel
Massachusetts and Vermont Avenues, NW
Washington, DC 20005
May 5-7, 1992
Agenda
Day One
Tuesday. May 5
7:00 - 8:30am Registration
Meeting Lobby
8:30 - 9:00am Welcome/Introduction Bob Wayland
National Hall
9:00- 10:00am Keynote Address
National Hall Questions and Answers
Lajuana Wilcher,
Assistant Administrator for Water
10:00 - 10:15am Break
10:15 - 12:00 Regional Customer Survey Louise Wise
National Hall
12:00 - 1.O Opm Lunch
Washington Room
Keynote Speaker
Margot Garcia, Water Quality 2000
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
FY92 National Program Meeting
1:00 - 2:00pm
National Hall
Panel Discussion
Watershed and Ecosystem Protection
"How can we strengthen the connection?"
Gregory Low, The Nature Conservancy
Scott Teierabend, National Wildlife Federation
Margot Garcia, Water Quality 2000
Moderator: Dave Davis
2:00 - 3:30pm
National Hall
Sharing of Common
Program Goals
Mike Cook
Tudor Davies
Jim Elder
3:30 - 4:00pm
Break
4:00 - 5:30pm
National Hall
5:30 - 6:30pm
Washington Room
6:30pm
Washington Room
Watershed Protection Approach
• Integrating Targeting Schemes
• Funding Flexibility
(• Developing and Implementing
Integrated Holistic Action Plans
"* Measurement and Monitoring
Social Hour
Group Buffet Dinner
Louise Wise
-------
Office of Weflands, Oceans and Watersheds
FY92 National Program Meeting
Day Two
Wednesday. May 6
8:00 - 8:30am Registration
Meeting Lob lnj
8:30 - 9:00am Review Agenda/Introduchon Dave Davis
National Hall
9:00 - 9:30am Keynote Speech
National Hall
William Richards,
Chief, Soil Conservation Service
9:30 - 11:00am Panel Discussion — Agriculture
National Hail
“Will voluntary approaches work and how?
Dale Darling, DuPont
Roland B. Geddes, National Association of
State Conservation Agencies
Donald Spickler, National Association of
Conservation Districts
Ralph Grossi, American Farmland Trust
Moderator: Dave Davis
11:00 - 11:15am Break
11:15 - 12:00 StormwaterlNPS/CZARA Geoff Grubbs
National Hall Strategic Integration Cynthia Dougherty
Marcella Jensen
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
FY92 National Program Meeting
12:00 - 1:00pm
Lunch
on your own
1:00 - 4:00pm
Meeting room
assignments will be
posted.
Division Breakout Session
You will find the Division Agendas following
this agenda in your notebook.
4:00 - 5:00pm
National Hall
5:15pm
Franklin Room
OWOW Staff Meeting
with the Regions
OWOW Staff/Regions Soda! Event
Day Three
Thursday. May 7
8:00 - 8:30am
Meeting Lobby
8:30 - 9:15am
National Hall
Registration
Resource Allocation Process
for FY93
Bernie Mason
9:15 - 10:30am
National Hall
OWOW Wrap-up Session
Bob Wayland
Dave Davis
Division-specific meeting may continue
(Wetlands Division plans to meet until Noon on Friday).
Meeting room assignments will be posted.
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
FY92 National Program Meeting
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
Agenda
Day Two
Wednesday. May 6
1:00 - 3:00pm Ocean Dumping Program Issues
• Revised Regulations: Roles of EPA vs. COE on site
management, monitoring, enforcement
• Regional Green Book Implementation Manuals
• Role of Capping
• National MOU with COE
• NOAA Marine Sanctuaries
• Status of Inputs to Workload Model
• Amendments to LDC (md. waste, rad. waste, dredged
material guidelines)
3:00- 4:00pm NEP: Development of Evaluative Protocols
(Blame Lines and Harry Hatry, State Policy Center,
Urban Institute)
Day Three
Thursday. May 7
10:30am - 12:15pm Innovative Approaches to Tackling the Decline of
Near Shore Marine Areas
Introduction to Project Concept
o Purpose of Session (AbE y Arnold and Bill Eichbaum,
Facilitators RESOLVE)
o Project Concept (Marian Mlay)
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
FY92 National Program Meeting
Facilitated Discussion on How to Go Forward
• What are examples of innovations that go beyond specific
controls, that result in program shifts, and that contribute to
a more rapid restoration of coastal environments?
• Which of these can be adapted to other regions?
• How should we identify additional solutions that could
have broader applications?
12:15 - 1:45pm NEP Program Issues
• Status of new NE? applications
• CCMP review issues (e.g., CZM)
• Post-CQvfl’ review issues
1:45 - 2:00pm Wrap-Up
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
FY92 National Program Meeting
Wetlands Division
Agenda
Day One
Tuesday. May 5
8:30am - 5:30pm OWOW Joint Session (Theme: Watershed Management)
5:30 - 6:3()pm OWOW Soda! Hour
6:30pm OWOW Group Dinner
Day Two
Wednesday. May 6
8:30am - 12:00
OWOW Joint Session (Theme: Agriculture)
12:00 - 1:00pm Lunch (on your own)
1:15 - 4:00pm Wetlands Division Breakout
1 15pm Introduction (HQ)
1:30pm Lead Region Comments
1:45pm National Strategy:
• RA’s reaction to LSW/WKR discussion
• Working with the public (creating positive
perceptions of the national program)
• Wetlands Action Strategy
3:45pm Return to OWOW Meeting
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
FY92 National Program Meeting
Day Three
Thursday. May 7
8:30 - 10:30am OWOW Joint Session/Wrap-Up
10:45 - 11:45am Key Issue Updates:
• Suermann (Tulloch) settlement
• Delineation Manual
• 404(c) updates (Ware Creek, ARCO 3L,
Hartz Mountain, Two Forks litigation)
• Hoffman Homes decision (7th Circuit)
12:00 - 1:00pm Lunch with Speaker
(Steve Gordon, Lane Council of Governments
OR
Invited)
1:15 - 2:45pm White House Plan I: Categorization
2:45 - 3:15pm Break
3:15 - 4:45pm Working with States, Local Governments,
and the Private Sector:
• State assistance
• National Governors’ Association
• Wetlands Hotline Annual Report
• Public Outreach
4:45 - 5:45pm Wetlands Research Plan (ORD)
7:00pm Wetlands Awards Dinner
(Gusti’s Restaurant, 1887 M Street, NW,
on the corner of 19th & M Streets)
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
FY92 National Program Meeting
Day Four
Friday. May 8
8:30 - 9:30am Army/Corps Perspective on the White House Plan
(Mike Davis, John Studt invited)
9:30 - 11:30am White House Plan II:
• (q) MOA
• RGLs
• State Program General Permits
• State Sec. 404 Assumption
11:30 - 12:00 Follow-Up Actions/Wrap-Up
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
FY92 National Program Meeting
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Agenda
Day Two
Wednesday. May 6
1:00 - 1:30pm
News Briefs Grubbs
1:30 - 3:15pm Nonpoint Sources Weitman
CZARA guidance and issues
o Clean Water Act Recommendations
• Agricultural Pollution Prevention
• NPS Strategic Plan
3:15 - 3:30pm Break
3:30 - 4:00pm Budget Issues Grubbs
Day Three
Thursday. May 7
10:45 - 11:30am TMDL Newton
Water Quality Planning
Habitat
11:30 - 12:00 Regional Wrap-Up
-------
2
-------
February Ii. I )2
OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS, AND WATERSHEDS
r Policy & Communication. \ Robere H. Wayland, ill, Director
I Staff
W . Ch f J David G. Davis, Deputy Director
I j2O2) 260-7166/Fax. J (202) 260-7166/Fax: (202) 260-6294
( Budgel & Program
I Mariagenient Stall
Bernie Mason. Chief
ç 92) 260-8580/Fax (202) 260-6294
ASS ESSMBJT & WATERSHED
PROTECflON DIVISION
Geoff Grubbs. Director
Carl Myers, Deputy Director
(202) 260-7040/Fax: (202) 260-7024
(
I
I
f
Monitming Branch
Elizabeth Jester, Chief
(202) 260-7046
Monitoring Information
Section ServIces Section
Mary Belefski , Bob King,
Chief Acting Chief
( Watershed Branch
Bruce Newton, Chief
(202) 260-7074
Wolgeshed Lake., Grant., and
Mmnageln,Jtt Section Outreach Section
Den Brady. Chief Frank Lapensee.
Chief
WETLANDS DIVISION
John Meagher. Director
Suz.anne Schwartz, Deputy Director
(202) 260-7791/Fax: (202)260-2356
OCEANS & COASTAL
PROTECTION DIVISION
Manan Mlay. Director
Craig Vogi, Deputy Director
(202) 260-1952/Fax: (202) 260-6294
Marine Pollution Control Branch
John Lishman, Chief
(202) 260-8448
Marine Ocean Dumping I
Di.chaag. Marine Debris
Section Section
Coastal Technology Branch
Karen klima, Chief
(202) 260-9130
Science Technology
Application. Assistance
Section Sect Ion
Steve Glomb, Karen Kltma
Acting Chief Acting Chief
(
I
1
Wetlands Strategies &
Stat, Programs Branch
Glenn Eugs*er. Chief
(202) 260-W45
Outreach & SirMeglEs &
(
State Program. Initiative.
J
Section Section
Glenn Eugstcr. Dianne Ash, Chief
1
Acting Chief
Wetlands & Aquatic Resourcee
Regulatory Branch
Greg Pecli. Chief
(202) 260-1799
Enforcement & Elevated Case.
Regulatory Policy Section
Section
CliffRader, Will Carvey.
Chief Ch ief
Nouipolnl Source Control Branch
Dev Weitman,. Chief
(202)260-7100
Urban Sources
Section
Rod Fredenck, Chief
Rural Source.
Section
Steve Dressing,
Acting Chief
John Lishman,
Acting Chief
Program Implementation
Section
Stu Tuller, Chief
David Redford,
Chief
I
Coastal Management Branch
Mark Curran. Chief
(202) 260-6502
Northeast and Southeast-Gulf
Great Lakes Coast and West Coasts
S ciion Section
Mark Curran,. Mark Curran.
A&ling Chief Acting Chief
-------
REGION
1
2
3
4
5
P PONSJRLE OFFWI S INTl-iF. RFGI(V S FflR OWOW PROC.PAM’ (2/14/92)
Wetlands NEPINCW/Oceans 304(1)/305(b)ITMDL Monitonrt
NPS/Clean Lakes
Enviro, Svcs. Div.
Water Management Division
Wa Quality Branch
MoMa /Eav iro.
Studies Branch
(Roti ManfredoniL 835 -3531)
(Carol Wo,j)
Water Management Division
Enviro.Svcs Div
Surveillance &
Monitoring Branch
(Richard Spear)
(340-6685)
I
Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch I
(Mario Del Vicano, 264-5170)
Waxer Standards &
Planning Branch
(Robert Vaughn)
(264-1833)
Environmental Services Division (ESD) Water Mgmi. D iv. 1 Enviro.Svcs. Div.
Environmental Assessri,ern Branch Program SUppOrt Enronmental
Branch Monitonng
(Richard Pepino. 597.1181)
(Victoria Bbieni) (Robert Kramer)
(597-3927) (597-9378)
Water Management Division
Wetlands. Oceans and Watersheds Branch
(E. Stallings Howell. 257.2126)
Water Division
Water Quality Branch
(Ken Fenner. 353.2079)
ESD
Monit A Branch
(Valerie Jones)
(353-2306)
Federal Activtnes Water Management Division
ESD
Branch I Water Quality Management Branch
(Norm Thomaa) (Richard Hoppers, 255-7135)
(255.2260) i
Surveillance Branch
ESD
(Jun Steibing)
(2552284)
ARA for
Policy & Mgrnt
(Susan G on)
Env. Review Branch
(Kenj Hen dan)
(2 i6-7042)
WMD
Wai Compliance
Branch
(Larry Ferguson)
(276-7034)
ESD
Envfro. Monitoring
Compliance Branch
(Thomas Holloway)
(757.3881)
Water Management Division
State Program Management Branch
(Dale Vodebnal)
(330-1565)
Water Mgrnt. Div.
State Program
Managemeni Branch
(Dale Vodehnal)
(330-1565)
Water Management Division
Wetlands. Oceans aral Estuaries Branch I Water Quality Branch
(Loretta Barsamian. 484-1953) (Cat Kuhhnan, 484.2001)
Water Division 4 J I Enviro Svcs Div
Environmental Office of I I Ambient Mon. &
Evaluauon Branch Office of Coastal Waters Water Planning I I Analysis Branch
(Ron Lee) I (Jack Gakstauer. 399-0966) crom Wilson) IlBienvenido Eusebto)
(8284316)
(399-4011) (399-1354) (399 0422)
- In Region 3. 304(1) and TMDL are managed by the Permits Enforcement Branch (Joseph T. Pioaowski) of’ the Water Management Divtsion
and 305(b) is managed by the Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance Branch of the Environmental Services Division.
2 - In Region 5. 305(b) is managed by the Momtoi’uig and QA Branch of the Environmental Sciences Division.
3- In Region 6. Oceans issues are managed jointly by the Environmental Sciences Division and the Water Management Division
4 - In Region 10. TMDL is managed by the Ambient Monitoring and Analysis Branch of the Envwonmental Ser ’ices Division.
6
7
S
9
10
-------
REGIONAL CONTACTS FOR THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAMS
REGION
NATIONAL ESTUARY
PROGRAM
CONTACT
j____________
FTS
Buzzards Bay
Bruce Rosinoff
835-9448
Casco Bay
Mark Smith
835-9461
Long Island Sound
Mel Cote
835-4870
Massachusetts Bay
Matthew Liebman
Carol Kilbnde
835-4866
835-3514
Narragansett Bay
Joanne Sulak
835-3523
Delaware Bay
Bob Nyman
264-5565
Long Island Sound
Eric Stern
264-5283
New York - New Jersey Harbor
Seth Ausubel
264-6779
Delaware Bay
Marria
O’MaIley Walsh
652-2105
Delaware Inland Bays
Krista Mendelman
597-3360
Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary Study
Ted Bisterfeld
257-1740
Gulf of Mexico
Lloyd Wise
257-2126
Indian River Lagoon
Eva Long
257-1740
Sarasota Bay
Dean Ulock
257-1740
Tampa Bay
Dean Ulock
257-1740
Great Lakes National Program Office
John Piper
353-8030
Baratana - Terrebonne
Barbara Keeler
255-6680
Galveston Bay
Ken Teague
255-6680
Gulf of Mexico
Laura Radde
255-7135
No National Estuary Programs
San Francisco Bay
Amy Zimpfer
484-1952
Santa Monica Bay
Paul Jones
484-1984
Pu get Sound
Jack Gakstatter
399-0966
1
-------
REGIONAL/HEADQUARTERS CONTACTS FOR OWOW PROGRAMS1 AS OF 4/15/92
RE 010 N
PROGRAMS
WETLANDS
NCW
OCEAN
DUMPING
403(c)
30 1(h)
304(I)
305(b)
TMDL
.
MONITORING
WATERSHED
PROTECTION
APPROACH
I
Douglas
Thompson
835-4422
Rosemary
Monahan
835-3518
O n Ruts
835-4423
Owen Ruts
835-4423
David Tonwy
835-4425
Phil
Colarusso
835-4428
David
Pincumbe
835-3544
Brian
Switzer
860-4377
David
Pincumbe
835-3544
Robert
Morehouge
835-3513
Warren
Howard
835-3515
Diane S tzer
860-4377
Bill Nuzzo
835-3480
-
- 2 —
Dan
Montella
264-5170
Janice
Rollwagon
264-5170
Brute
Kiselica
264-5692
Paul
Molinan
264-2513
Felix
Locicero
264-5691
Felix
Locicero
264-5691
Roaclla
OConner
264-8479
Pat Pergola
264-5623
Rosella
OConner
264-8479
Tony Dore
264-2059
Theresa
Faber
264-8708
Randy Braun
340-6692
Bob Vaughn
264.1833
3
Barbara
DAngelo
597-9301
Bill Muir
597-2341
Bill Muir
597-2541
Charles App
397-9589
Bill Muir
597-2541
Thomas
Henry
597-8243
Chuck
Kanetsky
597-8176
Thomas
Henry
597-8243
Hank
Zygmunt
597-3429
Hank
Zygmun,
597-3429
Chuck
Kanetaky
597-8176
Rick Pepino
597-1181
Victoria Benet
597-3927
4
Tom
Welborn
257-2126
Bob Lord
257-2126
Bob Howard
257-1740
BobHowud
257-1740
Roland Ferty
257-1740
Dan Abern
257-2126
Duane
Robertson
257-1040
Jim
Oreenfield
257-2126
Mary Ann
Gerber
257-2126
Howard
Marshall
257-2126
Dan Altem
257-2126
E Sialling
Howell
257-2126
S
Doug Ehorn
886-0243
Janet Causcy
333-2079
Jane DeRoec-
Bannem
353-2105
Wayne Davis
886-6233
Robert Pepin
886-1505
Tom
Davenport
886-0209
Tom
Davenport
886-0209
Wayne Davis
886-6233
Barry DeOraff
886-0147
6
Beverly
Eihndge
235-2263
Suzie
McKinnc
255-6680
Oeocge
Horvaib
255.6680
George
Horvath
255.6680
Ken Huffman
255-7115
Russell
Bowen
255-7140
Carl Young
255-7145
Sharon
Pamsh
2557l45
Susan
Alexander
2557l40
Mike Bira
255-7140
Charles
Hornig
255-2289
Russell Bowea
255-7140
Beverly E*hridge
255.2263
7
Duane
Hershberger
276-7573
BOb Steieii
276-7443
John
Houlihan
276-7432
John
1-fouluhan
276-7432
Julie Elfving
276-7475
Donna
Sefton
276-7500
Tom
Holloway
276-3881
John Houliban
276-7432
KenyHerndoo
276-7042
8
Gene
330-1570
Bruce Zasider
330-1580
Tony Ott
330-1373
Brute Zander
330-1580
Roger Dean
330-1571
David
Raihke
330-1574
David Vans-
Miller
330-5061
Bill Wunihele
330-1586
9
Phil Oshida
484-1971
Suzanne
Man
484-1963
Janet
Hashimoio
484-1156
Aaron Seiran
484-1967
Janet
Hashimoto
484-1156
Janet
Hasbimoto
484.1156
Tom Johnson
484-2006
Laura Tom
484-2006
David Smith
484-2019
Javita
PaijanIl
484-2011
Wendell
Smith
484-2018
FrlLui
484-2012
Cat Kuhiman
484-7001
1 0
William M
Riley
399-1412
Jack
Gakstaitcr
399-0966
John Matek
399-1282
John
Armstrong
3991368
Chuck Rice
399-8504
Carla Fisher
399-1756
Rick
Albnght
399-8514
Gretchen
Hayslip
399-1685
Bnuce
Cleland
399-2600
Elbert Moore
399-4181
Judith
Leckrone
399-6911
Greichen
Hayslip
399-1685
Rick Aibrughi
399-8314
Jack Gak.sstaiter
399-0966
OWOW
Suzanne
Schwartz
260-l799
Mark Cu,ran
260-6502
Susan Hitch
260-9178
David
Redford
260-9179
Brigitte
Farren
260-6419
Virginia
Fos-Norse
260-9129
Don Brady
260-5368
Mary
Belefeski
260-7061
Don Brady
260-5368
Dov
Weitinan
260-7100
Frank
Lapensee
260-7105
Elizabeth
Jester
260-7062
John Pat
260-8076
1 Contacts for the National Estuary Programs are listed separately
-------
Prepared: 3/27/92
Contact: M.Hinton, BPMS (260-7797)
Page 1 of 5
OFFICE OP WETLANDS, OCEANS AND WATERSHEDS (OWOW)
IMMEDIATE OFFICE (10)
BUDGET AND PROGRAM J4ANAGMENT STAFF (BPMS)
POLICY AND COMMUNICATION STAFF (PCS)
TELEPHONE ROOM FAX MAIL
NAME BRANCH CODE
BAUM, RAYMOND E. BPMS 260-9553 811H—FC 260-6294 t+f-
BROWN, ROBERT N. BPMS 260-9173 811H-FC 260-6294 W- -
DAVIS, DAVID C. 10 260—7166 811BB—FC 260—6294 H-
DAVIS, RENAE BPMS 260—9580 811J—FC 260—6294
EDWARDS, BILLY BPMS 260-8580 811J-FC 260-6294 W+
ETTINCER, JOHN F. BPMS 260—9113 811G—FC 260-6294 W4-
GERNANN, SANDY B. PCS 260—6418 811M—FC 260—6294
HINTON, MARY N. BPMS 260—7797 711——FC 260—2356 A—104F
JOHNSON, ANDRE 10 260—7166 811——FC 260-6294 H-
KRAMAN, PAUL D. BPI4S 260—9109 811AA—FC 260—6294 1-
MASON, BERNARD BPMS 260-9580 811F-FC 260-6294 W-I-
MONROE, PAULA F. PCS 260-6582 8111-FC 260-6294 H-
MOORE, BETTY S. PCS 260-9108 811——FC 260-6294 W -
PAl, JOHN T. PCS 260—8076 811E—FC 260—6294 ‘4f-
PAWLUKEWIZ, JANET PCS 260-9194 811H-FC 260—6294 Wi-
PROCTOR, SALLY PCS 260—9108 811-—FC 260-6294 Wi-
RATHBUN, ROY A. BPMS 260—9193 811H—FC 260-6294 WF
TIDWELL, ELENA BPI4S 260—8580 811J—FC 260—6294
WARREN, DOROTHY Pcs 260—7196 715-—FC 260—2356 4l-
WAYLAND, ROBERT 10 260-7166 811A-FC 260-6294 Wf
WILKINS, PATRICIA BPMS 260—7045 811G—FC 260—6294 W- -
WINGFIELD, JANICE 10 260—7166 811——FC 260—6294 Wi-
WISE, LOUISE P. PCS 260-9108 811B—FC 260—6294 H-
-------
Prepared: 3/27/92
Contact: M. Hinton, BPMS (260—7797)
Page 2 of 5
WETLANDS DIVISION (WI ))
UO(EDIATZ OFFICE (10)
WETLANDS STRATEGIES & STATE PROGRAMS BRANCH (WS8PB)
WETLANDS & AQUATIC RESOURCES REGULATORY BRANCH (WARRB)
TELEPHONE ROOM FAX MAIL
NAME BRANCH CODE
BAGGATTS, CYNTHIA 10 260—9916 711—FC 260—2356 A-104F
DAVIA, JOSEPH P. WA.RRB 260—1602 721—FC 260—7546 A-104F
CLARK, CURTIS WSSPB 260—9903 719—FC 260—8000 A—104F
EARGLE, FRANCES WSSPB 260—1954 719—FC 260-8000 A-].04F
EtJGSTER, JOSEPH WSSPB 260—9043 717—FC 260—8000 A-104F
FICKLING,VIRGINIA WSSPB 260—6068 717-FC 260—8000 A-104F
FICKS, BENJAMIN WSSPB 260—2364 719—FC 260—8000 A-104F
FIELDS, SHERRI L. WSSPB 260—1932 719—FC 260—8000 A—104F
FISH, DIANNE H. WSSPB 260—1699 719—FC 260—8000 A-104F
FRANCZAK, STANLEY WSSPB 260—9908 717—FC 260—8000 A-104F
FREEMAN, JANE H. WARRB 260—6422 721—FC 260—7546 A—104F
FRITZ, MICHEAL A. WARRB 260—6013 721—FC 260—7546 A—104F
FUNDERBURK,GENEVA 10 260—9919 711—FC 260—2356 A—104F
GARVEY, WILLIAM WARRB 260—9900 721—FC 260—7546 A—104F
GIACOBBE, CORY WSSPB 260—5907 719—FC 260—8000 A-104F
GOODIN, JOHN T. WARRB 260—9910 721—FC 260—7546 A—104F
GROMAN, HAZEL WARRB 260—8795 721—FC 260—7545 A—104F
JOHNSON, JUIDITH WSSPB 260—9907 719—FC 260—8000 A-104F
KELSCH, THOMAS E. WARRB 260—8795 721—FC 260—7546 A-104F
MARTINEZ, MARIA WARRB 260—5299 721—FC 260—7546 A—104F
MEAGHER, JOHN 10 260—1917 711—FC 260—2356 A-104F
MELANSON, JEANNE WSSPB 260—9043 719—FC 260—8000 A-104F
NOBLE, STEPHANIE WARRB 260—7946 721—FC 260—7546 A-104F
ODOM, KATHRYN 10 260—6463 711—FC 260—2356 A—104F
PECK, GREGORY E. WARRS 260—8794 721—FC 260—7546 A-104F
PINKNEI, MARY 10 260—1991 711—FC 260—2356 A—104F
RADER, CLIFFORD WARRB 260-6587 721-FC 260-7546 A-104F
RAY, CHARLES B. WSSPB 260—6411 719—FC 260—8000 A—104F
ROBB, DOREEN M. WSSPB 260—1906 719—FC 260—8000 A—104F
SCHWARTZ, SUZANNE 10 260—8447 723—FC 260—7546 A—104F
SIEG-ROSS, SANDRA WARRB 260-9914 721—FC 260—7546 A-104F
SIPPLE, WILLIAM WSSPB 260—6066 719—FC 260—8000 A—104F
STEVENS, NAT WSSPB 260—5048 719—FC 260—8000 A—104F
STOUT, MARTHA L. WSSPB 260—2315 719—FC 260—8000 A-104F
WESLEY, MARJORIE WSSPB 260—1905 719—FC 260—8000 A—104F
WHITELEY, LARA WSSPB 260—1901 719—FC 260—8000 A—104F
WILLIAMS, LORI WSSPB 260—5084 719—FC 260—8000 A—104F
-------
Prepared: 3/27/92
Contact: M. Hintori, BPMS (260-7797)
Page 3 of 5
OCEANS & COASTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
IMMEDIATE OFFICE (10)
COASTAL TECHNOLOGY BRANCH (CTB)
MARINE POLLUTION CONTROL BRANCH (MPCB)
COASTAL MANAGEMENT BRANCH (CMB)
TELEPHONE ROOM FAX MAIL
NAME BRANCH NO. NO. CODE
AMSON, JONATHAN CTB 260-9125 725A-FC 260—6689 H-
CHASE, THOMAS J. MPCB 260-1909 725D—FC 260—6294 H-
CRANE, CATHERINE MPCB 260—9177 725G-FC 260—6294 H-
CURRAN, MARX D. CMB 260—8483 811W—FC 260—6294 - ‘
DELANEY, ELLEN L. MPCB 260-9798 725F-FC 260-6689 H- ’
DESHIELD, BERTYE MPCB 260—8448 725——FC 260—6689 t ’H-
FARREN, BRIGITTE MPCB 260-9119 725B-FC 260-6689 +-
FLORY, MARK CMB 260—6504 81].Y—FC 260—6294 41- ’
FOX-NORSE, V. MPCB 260-9129 725B-FC 260-6689 H-
GLOMB, STEPHEN J. CTB 260-6414 811U-FC 260—6294 - ‘
HALL, JOSEPH N. CTB 260-9082 811AA—FC 260—6294 &i- ’
HALL, RAYMOND E. CTB 260-1998 811Q—FC 260—6294
HANSFORTH, FLO CTB 260-8448 725——FC 260—6689 S H-
HITCH, SUSAN S. MPCB 260—9178 725H—FC 260—6689 S H-
JONES, DELOIS CMB 260—6502 811——FC 260—6294
KING, JOANN R. MPCB 260—8448 725—-FC 260-6689 f-
KLIMA, KAREN S. CTB 260—9130 811X—FC 260—6294 H-
LISHMAN, JOHN MPCB 260—8448 725E—FC 260—6689 f- ’
LOEB, GEORGE CTB 260-6074 81].-FC 260-6294
MCLEAN, EDWARD CTB 260-9122 81].U-FC 260-6294 *- a
MLAY MARIAN 10 260—1952 811D—FC 260—6294 H- &’
NICKERSON, DONNA CMB 260—9038 811Z—FC 260—6294 H-
O’DELL, MARCELYN CTB 260—1904 725D—FC 260-6689 f-
PAN, PAUL 10 260—9111 811TT—FC 260—6294 ‘ 41-
PERRY, KEVIN L. CTB 260—6833 811U—FC 260—6294 AH- ’
PRYOR, MARGHERITA CMB 260-9176 8].1V-FC 260-6294 T H ’
REDFORD, DAVID MPCB 260-9179 725G-FC 260-6689 % H-
REPSER, WANDA R. CTB 260-6097 811--FC 260—6294 ‘H- ’
SALTER, JOEL H. MPCB 260—8484 725C-FC 260—6689 ‘ ‘H-
SANZONE, STEPHANI CMB 260—9137 811V—FC 260—6294
SMITH, PEARL W. 10 260—1952 811——FC 260—6294 &f-
SPARROW, TIFFANY CMB 260—6502 811——FC 260—6294 41-
STAHL, LEANNE L. CMB 260—9799 811V—FC 260—6294 % H- ’
TAN, ELIZABETH L. CMB 260-6466 811Y-FC 260—6294 H-
THOMPSON, NADEEN CMB 260-6502 811——FC 260-6294 H-
VEILLETJX, NICOLE CTB 260—1981 811——FC 260—6294 1’ H-
VILLANTJEVA, EDNA CTB 260-6509 725C-FC 260-6689 % f-
VOGT, CRAIG 10 260—1952 811C—FC 260—6294 W -
-------
Prepared: 3/27/92
Contact: N. Hinton, BPMS (260-7797)
Page 4 of S
ASSESSMENT & WATERSHED PROTECTION DIVISION (AWPD)
IMMEDIATE OPPICE (10)
MONITORING BRANCH (MB)
WATERSHED BRANCH (WB)
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL BRANCH (NSCB)
TELEPHONE ROOM FAX MAIL
NAME BRANCH CODE
BALLARD, PAULETTE WB 260—9588 829——ET 260-7024 -553
BAUCOM, HERMAN N. MB 260-7021 744——ET 260-7024 h —553
BEIER, ANN E. NSCB 260—7108 833——ET 260—7024 —553
BELEFSKI, MARY L. MB 260—7061 841——ET 260—7024 1 H—553
BRADY, DONALD J. WB 260—5368 737D—ET 260—7024 —553
BROSSMAN, MARTIN WB 260—7023 837——ET 260—7024 4I—553
BUIE, LINDA F. NSCB 260—7085 829——ET 260—7024 {—553
BURCAN, BARRY MB 260—7010 743——ET 260—7024 1—553
CANNELL, JOHN R. NSCB 260—7087 927A—ET 260—7024 *(—553
CLIFFORD, JOHN J. MB 260—3667 9278—ET 260—7024 —553
CRAIG, DORA G. MB 260—7031 835C—ET 260—7024 S {—553
DRABKOWSKI, EDWIN NSCB 260—7009 843——ET 260—7024 1—553
DRESSING, STEVEN NSCB 260—7110 833——ET 260—7024 1—553
FAULKNER, CHRIS MB 260—6228 743——ET 260—7024 —553
FREDERICK, RODNEY NSCB 260-7054 835B—ET 260-7024 M-553
GOO, ROBERT L. NSCB 260—7025 843——ET 260—7024 I—553
GREEN, MADELINE MB 260—7032 835——ET 260—7024 ? H—553
GRUBBS, GEOFFREY 10 260—7040 837-—ET 260—7024 F-553
HARLLEE, NINA S. MB 260—7017 846——ET 260—7024 S M—553
HARRIS, PAMELA J. NSCB 260—8077 837——ET 260—7024 :1—553
HOELMAN, LOUIS MB 260—7050 835——ET 260—7024 i—553
HOLLINGSWORTH, T. WB 260—7840 827-—ET 260—7024 —553
IOSCO, ROBERT NSCB 260—7104 833——ET 260—7024 !—553
JESTER, ELIZABETH MB 260—7062 835——ET 260—7024 ? i-553
KING, ROBERT E. MB 260—7068 835——ET 260—7024 —553
KOSCO, JOHN A. NSCB 260—7085 839——ET 260—7024 I—553
KUNKOSKI, DONALD WB 260—7103 832——ET 260—7024 I—553
LAPENSEE, PATRICK WB 260—7105 829——ET 260—7024 i—553
MAY10, ALICE E. MB 260—7018 743——ET 260—7024 —553
MICHELL, PEGGY WB 260—5378 747A—ET 260—7024 I—553
MYERS, CARL F. 10 260—7040 837——ET 260—7024 i—553
-------
Regional, Field, and Chapter Offices
for
The Nature Conservancy
-------
R E G 1 0 N A L, F I E L D & C H A P T E R 0 F F I C E S
Ea Rwnai Orate Cotoxco Finn Orncx k*nses Fm,za Own New HAMPctIa Cnann Oxuutoeui Finn Own
2 o lDevoriah lrxStrw, l ll4Ptrae5tret SouthwescPlanBtiilduig 21 /28 conSerea,Suee6 3205 Bosion.Susie 1222
Sth floor Boulder. C080302 3601W 29thScrees C.ancord,NH0330 1 TuS,OK 74103
Bogon.MAO2I IO (303)4442950 Swie 1128 (603)224-5853 (918) 585-1117
(611) 542-1908 Sydney Macy, Vice Pnrsdeiu Topeka, KS 66614 Ed Spencer. Director Herb Beatue. Director
8ruceRunraels,V acePr ertt (913)272-5115
Eve Eridicoes, Vice Prendent, Co*oirsnrr Calaran Alan Pollom, Director NrwJeasrr Fins Own Oxitoal F i n n Orria
S cial Projects 55 1- l w ) Siren 17 Fairmount Road 1205 N Vi 25th Ave
Philip Tabas, Vice Prendeni. Midieiown, CT 06457 KEWTUaY Cnann P0 Box 181 Portland, OR 97210
Land Pnecuon/Ailorney (203) 344-0716 642W Main Siren Pieterwille. NJ 07979-0 181 (503) 228-956
Laura jolirvan, Vice Prendeni La Corey Vice President Lexington. KY 40508 (906) 439-3007 RuatelJ S Hoejljch, Vice
(606) 259-9655 Machad Catana, Eh.iw.or President
Mi Dwest Rraa4Al. Oven Diatoms Fan Own Jun Aldrich, Vice Prendent
1313 Fifth Siren, SE, *314 1014 E Central Avenue New M exico Finn Own Pwvetveraiat FmnnOvrn
Minneapoln. MN 55414 Bismarck, ND 58501 Lasstna Finn Own 107 Cienega Siren 1211 Coennw St. 12th Boor
(612)379-2301 (701)222-8643 P0 Box 4125 Santa Fe, NM 8 1501 Pluladeiphia.PA 19107-4122
Ruin Vin 1-lerik, Vice President Joseph A Sitrorn, Director Baton Rouge, IA 70621 (505) 988.3867 (215)963-1400
(504) 338-1040 Bill Wa ldman, Direnor Cajy Nicholas, Director
Scmeatsr Rwaesa- Ovens Del AWA RE Fan OFFit2 Nancy Jo Craig, Vice Prandent
P0 Box2267 3195 teStren NcwYoaxFawO ena R$OC CIitJU4DFaDOFnCE
Chapel Hill. NC 27515-2261 Dovô. DE 19903 MAINE CltAflxE 1736 Wenern Await 205 Govenior Suet
(919) 967-5493 (302) 674-3550 122 Main Siren Albany. NY 12203 Providence, RI 02906
Charles Basent, Vice President Rob McKim, Director Topeharn, ME 04086 (518) 869.6959 (401)331-7110
(207) 729-5 181 Martin Carovarin. Director Keith brig, Director
Wratrerd Rainu,i. Own Fiotoat Oewnu Kent W Wornmack, Director
2060 Broadway, Susie 230 2699 La Road, Suite 500 New Yoex Owia Owie Sotrni C*a,tses Fan Own
Boukier, CO 80302 Winier Park, FL 32789 M,anunoFrnoOwia P0 Box5415
(303)444-1060 (407)628-5887 Chevy Gnat Mao Bldg Adirondack Nature Columbia, SC 29250
Dennis Donald, Director John FhckeL Vice Presdent 2 Wixormrt Circle, Susie 600 Conservancy (803) 254-9049
ChesyOaMD2%15 P0 Box 188 PatrickMorpn.Director
Lwjov Aaac* Dmrwv Gwnw Faa Own (301)656-8673 Elira}xthtown, NY 12932
1815 N Lynn Siren 1401 Prachira Siren, NE Wayne Kiocloter, Director (518) 576.3082 Terovesses Finn Own
Ailangton.VA 22209 State 136 Timothy Bama l . Director P0 Box3Oll
(703)841.5300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Mftusicnussn Fiatin Own Nashville. iN 372 L9
GeoErey S Barnard. Vice (404) 873-6946 201 Devonshire Siren. Central and Wenern (615) 242.1787
Pr en i Octavia McCuesn. Director 5th Floor NY Oiapeaa Jeffrey Sinks, Director
Boseon,MAO2 I IO 3 lSAlwnderStret,Suite
PaaPic Rrocev Orna Gaitwi Berni Finn OwEs (617) 423.2545 301 Tines Finn Own
1116 Smith Sixes. Suite 201 P0 Box 11486, Pioneer Cane S Rotens, Director Rochener, N’I 14U$ P0 Box 1410
Honolulu, HI 96817 Station (716) 546.8030 San Antonio, TX 18295-1440
(808) 537.4506 Salt Lake City, If!’ 84147.0486 MC54CA1i Fan Own David Klein, Duector (512) 224-8774
Kelvin Takea,a, Vice Pradent, (801) 531-0999 2840 E Grand River, Suite s David Bairn. Director
Hawaii arid Pacific Region David Uvxrrrioat. Vice En Lansing. MI 48823 Easiern NY Giapin
Program Pr adeni (S17) 332-1741 1736 Western Avenue Vcntav’r Finn Own
Toni Worvade, Vice Pradent Albany. NY 12203 27 State Siam
Aiaaatatat Finn Own Itewatil Finn Own (518) 869-0453 Montpelier. VT 05602-2934
8061) 29th Siren, S 1116 Smith Suet. Suite 201 Maera tat Fists Own PegOben. Direcice (802) 229-4425
Buimnghzn,AL 35205 ltnolu lu,F 1 19681 7 I3 l3FtfthSerxn,SE RobertJ Klein VicePr eni
(205) 933-5 15) (806) 537.4506 Manawaurlia, MN 55414 Long Wand Ctujw
Kathy Cooley. Director Kelvin Takeia, Vice Proadent, (612) 379-2134 250 Lawrence Hill Road Vicavie Fan Oven
l-Iawau and Pacific Region Ndeon T French. Director Cold Spring 1-br Uce, NY 11724 1110 Rose l-lsll Din, Susie
Ai.as Fan Owns Program (516)387-3225 200
601 W Fifth Ave , Suite 550 Mesitsiwi Finn Own Andrew Walker, Duector Clurictiexeille, VA 22901
Anchorage, AK 99501 theac Finn Own P 0 Box 1Q28 (804) 295-6106
(907) 276.3133 P0 Box 165 Jaclraon,MS 39215-1028 l,owaHu nChalxa
Stonn Rixkly. Direcior Sun Valley, ID 63353 (601) 355-5357 223 Katoriah Avant WAsat i acrcal Finn O ven
(208)726.3007 RogerJona. Director Kaiortah. NY 10536 217 Pine Si ,, Suite 1100
Asriatat Finn Own Guy Bonruvier, Vice President (914) 232.9431 Sentle, WA 96101
300 E Llniverrity Blvd Mint Finn Own Olivia Mallard, Diauaor (206) 343-4344
Suite 230 1WN0 SFZDOVPC 28005 Brentwood Blvd EDn Mart, Vice Pratlent
Turi, AZ 85705 79W Monroe Siren. & Lo S, MO 63144 South ForltaSheher l e O’iapw
(602) 622-3861 Suite 900 (314) 968-1105 PC Box 2694 West Vraa Fan Own
Dan Cani ell, VIce Prxaident Oilcaw, 160603 Rod Miller, Vice President Sag Harbor, NY 11963 922 Qisamer Siren. Suite 406
(312)346-8166 (516)725-2936 Charlenon, WV 25301
Asxvi’txats Fan Own Albert Pyoti. Director Macunit Finn Own Sara Dayton. Dtrena (304)345-4)50
300 Spring Building. SuIte 717 Law Chance Gulch and 6th Mark Scott, Director
Utile Rock, AR 72201 btcxntat Finn Oven PD Boa 258 l bxnt Qacitsa Fan Oven
(501)372-2150 1330 West )fth Siren Helena, MT 59624 Cain Mill Mall, Sun 223 WiscraisiN FinnOwn
Nancy Dd.anur, Vice lndianapmlrn. IN 46266 (406) 443-0)03 Cnratoio, NC 27310 333W MdBin, Suite 107
Prondcnt (311)923-7547 Brian Kahn, Director (919)967-7007 Madhon, WI 53103
DennsJ McGrath. Director Katherine Skinner, VIce (608) 251-8140
Catirosteui Fan Dma Nessusat Ftnn Own Prondern Peer McKeever, Director
l8 iMadteeStrnt kiwaFiEiDOrPcx 418S Llkh&ret
San Franciaco, CA 94103 43 L E Locia, Suite 200 Omaha. NE 68102 Dico Finn Own Vlrnnio Finn Own
(415)777.0487 It Marc, LA 50309 (402)342-0282 1504 Wee in Awesitic 258 MaIn kites, Suite 200
Ste ve McCo rm ick, Vice (515) 244-5044 V In cent E Shay, Director Colurdetsi, OH 43212 Lander, WY 82520
Pradenc Gary B Reinera. Director (614) 486.6789 (307) 332-2971
Ben PIerce, Director
36 NATURE CONSERVANCY’ MAY/JUNE 1992
-------
3
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
National Program Meeting
May 5-7, 1992
Washington, DCE
Customer Survey Results
-------
Table of Contents
Regional Participants 3
Results of Customer Survey -- Part I
OWOW-Wide Average Rankings by Service (FY91 and FY92) 4
Program Specific Rankings by Service (FY91 and FY92 ) 6
Budget Planning and Funding Processes 7
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison 8
National Tools 9
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs 10
Technology Transfer and Outreach 11
Overall Administration 12
Division Rankings by Service (FY92 ) 13
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division 14
Wetlands Division 16
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division 18
Results of Customer Survey: Regional Comments -• Part II
Overall OWOW Support 20
Opportunities/Issues for Office Director Attention 21
Division Program Agendas 23
National Priorities 27
Appendix: Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Customer Survey
2
-------
Regional Participants
R J
Ron Manfredonia
Carol Wood
Region II
Dan Forger
Dan Montello
Janice Roliwagon
Robert Vaughn
Region Iii
Victoria Binetti
Chuck Kanetsky Ot
Robert Kramer
Richard Pepino
Chesapeake Bay Program
John Capacasa
Dan Ahern
Bob Howard
Stallings Howell
Carol Terrace
Tom Welborn
Region VI
Beverly
Richard
George
Ethridge
Hoppers
Horvath
Gulf of Mexico Program
Doug Lipka
Region VII
Larry
Kerry
John
Ferguson
H erndon
Houlihan
Region VIII
Dale Vodehnal
Region IX
Catherine Kuhiman
Amy Zimpfer
Region X
Jack Gakstatter
Ron Lee
Kerrie Schurr
3
-------
Excellent
1i
Poor
OWOW-Wide Average Rankings by Service
5.0
0.0
DFY 9 i1
o FY92
I
c i )
C
0
I
C
. .
bi
U
. C
0
ii
p
C
. .
:
C
0
4
-------
o wo W- Wide
FY92 Survey Results
Since FY91, Have Services Improved,
Declined, or Stayed About the Same?
(# of responses)
Budget Development and Funding Processes 14 5 19
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison 4 10 23
National Tools 14 8 15
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs 8 4 26
Technology Transfer and Outreach 11 2 24
Overall Administration 14 2 22
5
-------
Program-Specific
Rankings by Service
-------
Excellent 5.0 - /
41
Budget Planning and Funding Processes
Monitoring
a Resource losses
continue
• Concern about
merger with
NPS program
a Still unclear
about FY93
NEP/NCW
a Some improvements in
getting $ to the Regions
a Need to show resource
allocations to specific areas
• Would prefer to receive $
c.irlv and let Regions hold
till workplans approved
• Workplan reviews still late
Ni ’S
• Good $ flow to Regions
• 319 travel is significant
issue re ability to oversee
projects; HQ
management should
play stronger role
Oceans
• Workload model
rework underway
a 403 $ very late
decisions
if
3.1
2.3
/ -
2.4
2.9
2.3
2.0
/—7
3.4
/
Poor 0.0-
3.4
2.6
D FY91
0 FY92
3.0
Monitoring NEP/NCW
NPS Oceans
Wetlands
Wetlands
• Better $ flow to Regions
a Still need to be more
aggressive and show
leadership in budget
development process
7
-------
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison
Excellent 5.0 -
0 FY91
0 FY92
3.6 __________
25 2.9 2.6 2.7 2,8 2.7
2.3
1.9
Poor 0.0- 1 1 1 47
Monitoring NEPINCW NPS Oceans Wetlands
Monitoring NEP/NCW NFS Oceans Wetlands
• Need more • Need more regular • Very little feedback • Lack of communication • Still lack strategy
information information about Hill • Need to be more
about Hill activities aggressive
activities, • Should be far more
particularly re aggressive with CWA
USGS
B
-------
National Tools
Excellent 50
• 403 forgotten?
• Ocean dumping
regs/COE MOUs
underway but behind
schedule
Wetlands
• Not much has happened
• Need to work more
aggressively with COE
and FWS and agricultural
cornrnuni ty
Poor 0.0
D FY91
FY92
Monitoring NEP/NCW NPS
Monitoring
• Some progress
• Stilineed
mission
statement
• Prohlen s with
v tcrhodv
tracking system
NEP/NCW
• NEP guidance too late for
effective use
• NCW still unclear
Oceans Wetlands
Oceans
NPS
• Need policyon
grants/administrative
issues
• Good job with CZM
guid nt.t . but other areas
neglected
• Need to work with
Regions on documenting
success
9
-------
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs
o FY9
____ o FY92
NEP/NCW
• Positives with NOAA
• Try to reach out more
• Could have used
NCW/NCMP more
effectively
NPS
• Continue work on
TMDLs with
OST/ORD/monitonng
U Work with NOAA on
CZM
• Need better integration
with OPPE/OI’TS --
agriculture initiatives
Oceans
• More interaction
needed on EMAP,
municipal NPDES with
OWEC, sediment issues
• Coordination with
Wetlands better
Wetlands
• Too internally focused
• Should be networking
more with local, state, and
environmental
organizations
5.0
Excellent
0.0
Poor
Monitoring
Monitoring NEP/NCW
NPS
• Some work
underway but
need tools to be
more effective
• Many
workgroups
operating from
D.C. so results
not visible to all
Oceans
Wetlands
10
-------
O FY91
O FY92
Poor 0.0
Monitonng
• Good interagency
work and citizen
monitoring efforts
NEP/NCW
• More action and less strategies
• Should lead in transferring
success among NEPs,
Chesapeake Bay, etc.
• Need annual tech transfer
meeting
• More on action demonstration
projects
NPS
• Newsletter still great
• Monthly updates good
addition
• 6217 efforts good
• Lots more can be done
Oceans
• Needs more attcntion
Wetlands
• Agriculture outreach
paper is good
• However, outreach in
general needs more
emphasis and discussion
Excellent
11
5.0
Technology Transfer and Outreach
Monitoring NEP/NCW
NPS Oceans Wetlands
•11
-------
Excellent
5.0
Overall Administration
Poor
Monitoring
• Many new
initiatives
underway
• Signs are
encouraging
0.0
NEP/NCW
• Excellent support
• Good working
relationships
NPS
• Regional liaisons are very
helpful
• Still need to work on
program priorities! vision
• Regions do a lot of
initiating
• Little HQ outreach
O FY91
O FY92
Wetlands
• Trying, still need to get on
top of administration
priorities, become more of
a force
• Make better use of
Regional expertise and
make Regions integral
partners
Monitoring NEPINCW NPS Oceans Wetlands
Oceans
12
-------
Division Rankings by Service I
K
I
13
-------
Excellent
4
Poor
5.0
0.0
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
FY92 Survey Results
14
O NEP/NCW
O Oceans
U,
U,
.— l J
‘4
.‘ .
U,
C
0
I-
0
z
• i
• —
0
II
Ii
I
0
U,
:
—
-------
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
FY92 Survey Results
Since FY91, Have Services Improved,
Declined, or Stayed About the Same?
NEPINCW (# of responses)
Budget Development and Funding Processes 6 0 2
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison 0 4 4
National Tools 4 2 1
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs 3 1 4
Technology Transfer and Outreach 1 1 6
Overall Administration 3 0 5
OCEANS
P iln
Budget Development and Funding Processes 3 3 1
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison 0 2 4
National Tools 3 1 3
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs 1 1 5
Technology Transfer and Outreach 1 1 4
Overatl Administration 2 0 5
15
-------
Excellent
Poor
5.0
0.0
Wetlands Division
FY92 Survey Results
16
U
0
0
0
..
z
— .
, L)
To
It
C l )
I -I
ii
p
0
‘.4
-------
Wetlands Division
FY92 Survey Results
Since FY91, Have Services Improved,
Declined, or Stayed About the Same?
(# of responses)
p d p ed
Budget Development and Funding Processes 3 0 6
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison 1 3 5
National Tools 0 1 8
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs 0 1 8
Technology Transfer and Outreach 3 0 6
Overall Administration 2 1 6
17
-------
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
FY92 Survey Results
Excellent 5.0
41
Poor 0.0
18
DNPS
U Monitoring
ii
C
0
I
ELI
0
c l ) 0
IJ.1
II
g
:
-------
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
FY92 Survey Results
Since FY91, Have Services Improved,
Declined, or Stayed About the Same?
MONITORING (# of responses)
Budget Development and Funding Processes 2 0 4
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison 2 0 4
National Tools 2 2 2
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs 2 0 4
Technology Transfer and Outreach 4 0 2
Overall Administration 5 0 1
NPS
Same
Budget Development and Funding Processes 0 2 6
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison 1 1 6
National Tools 5 2 1
Enlisting Assistance of Other Programs 2 1 5
Technology Transfer and Outreach 2 0 6
Overall Administration 2 1 5
19
-------
OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS AND WATERSHEDS
RESULTS OF CUSTOMER SURVEY
April 1992
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ON OVERALL OWOW SUPPORT
COMMUNICATIONS: General improvement -- OWOW has listened and been
responsive to Regional needs and suggestions. Signs are positive for continuing
improvements.
ORGANIZATION: Structure is sound and roles and responsibilities, for the most
part, are clear. A few issues still remain with TMDLs, WPA, environmental
indicators. Great waterbody programs do not feel well represented, are not part of
regular communication networks, and perceive conflicts between OWOW and OW
on who is in charge.
PLANNING AND BUDGETING: Could still make improvements on an integrated
budget — and use existing grants to focus more on environmental benefits.
PROGRAM AGENDAS: Improvements in engaging Regions in these discussions —
keep it up.
LEGISLATION: Regions still have concerns. Be aggressive in CWA effort and keep
pushing on wetlands -- communicate and keep Regions involved.
ENLISTING ASSISTANCE OF OTHERS: Need particularly to focus on other
agencies — more can be done here. Approaches like WPA should help. NCMP was
making contributions. May take higher level involvement.
NATIONAL MEETINGS: Good work! Generally well planned and facilitated,
responsive to Regional comments. Could focus more on cross-Division issues.
Need Division-specific agendas earlier. Some preference for OWOW-wide meeting
in fall and Division-specific meetings in the spring for budget planning. Some
problems with coverage of breakouts.
CONFERENCE CALLS: All three Divisions have responded to this suggestion and
these are very useful for information exchange. Would be even better with advance
agendas — a little more planning — so Regions can determine appropriate
participation. Should explore more use of videoconferences.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS: Good informational packages from OWOW and
better distribution. Legislative updates must be continued. AWPD in particular
provides good, useful information. Keep key contacts list up to date.
REGIONAL REVIEWS: A few have happened — and were well planned — but could
have been more focused on issues of Regional concern. OST and perhaps others
should have participated in certain sessions.
REQUESTS FOR COMMENT: Improvements in comment periods.
20
-------
OPPORTUNITIES/ISSUES FOR OFFICE DIRECTOR ATTENTION
BUILDING A COMMON VISION
• Watershed Protection Approach could be used more effectively to
provide an OWOW identity as well as integrate programs within
OWOW, EPA, and other federal agencies. WPA is not currently being
pursued with equal vigor across OWOW.
CLEAN WATER ACT REAUTHORIZATION
• Consider needs for implementation resources, such as NEP
capitalization projects; flexibility; support for WPA.
BUILDING STATE CAPACiTY
• Need to find innovative ways to build relationships and build capacity
for OWOW programs, Wetlands in particular.
• Review current resource allocations under 106 and ensure appropriate
guidance is developed for use of these funds.
• Watch for duplicative efforts on initiatives -- Coastal America, NCW,
etc.
MONITORING
• Continue efforts to use data and assessments to drive other program
decisions. Need to produce the monitoring mission statement as well
as work out interagency agreements.
• Continue work on bioassessments/ecoregions.
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM/NEAR COASTAL WATERS
• Continue commitment to federal role in the NE?, post CCMP. Open
dialogue with the NEPs on how to sustain momentum beyond just
resources. Look for CWA opportunities.
• Assure sound criteria/justifications for new NE!’ projects.
• NCW still needs work — a definition and how this program fits within
the overall coastal protection framework. Perhaps it should be used to
target specific themes like SAy, coral reefs, etc.
• Coastal America must also be defined within an overall coastal
protection framework. If this continues to be a viable program, must
work to streamline selection and budgeting process.
21
-------
NONPOINT SOURCES
• Needs a national framework to define roles and responsibilities among
federal agencies — EPA, Agriculture, NOAA, etc., areas of emphasis and
implementation strategies.
• Develop a budget strategy to support the above.
OCEANS
• Renew attention to 403 issues.
WETLANDS
• Must maintain viable presence in this program — COB is becoming
more assertive about their role and too little coming from EPA HQ.
Develop plans/options for implementing current policy.
• Outreach is critical -- to build alliances with state and local
governments and the environmental community and to convey
information to the public.
22
-------
DIVISION AGENDAS: OCEAN AND COASTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
NEP/NCW
• Continue working on support to NEPs, post CCMP. Look for creative ways
to sustain momentum, like customer/supplier agreements.
• Work with NEPs and other geographic programs to foster support for
improved water quality standards and criteria to protect living resources.
• Provide more technology transfer and hands-on learning opportunities
for NEPs and other geographic programs.
• Provide more support for Action Demonstration projects and look at tech
transfer needs.
• Analyze overall data management needs and access to data and
information.
• Work on definition and direction for NCW program -- currently too weak
and vulnerable to taps.
• Work more closely with the Regions on the need for new
strategies/workshops and other new initiatives.
• Very helpful in Gulf of Mexico legislative support
Oceans
• Continue work on ocean dumping regulations and national MOU with
COE.
• Continue efforts on ocean dumping enforcement.
• Continue work on sediment strategy.
• Review recent ocean dumping coordinators meeting — need better
planning.
• Renew attention to the 403 program, both issues and budget allocation
process.
• Clarify role of Coastal Technology Branch.
• Encourage details/rotations of 403 staff to get better understanding of
permit issuance process
• Continue 403/301h national meetings
• Need monthly updates on 403/301h
23
-------
DIVISiON AGENDAS: ASSESSMENT AND WATERSHED PROTECTiON
DIVISION
NPS
• Work on NI’S and monitoring budget issues -- resource allocations
between the two programs, NPS travel $ for appropriate oversight,
diversion of 319 $ to CZM and Gulf of Mexico.
• Need a NI’S mission statement/program integration strategy with clear
roles and responsibilities.
• Continue work on NI’S national grants tracking system.
• NI’S grants management and audit training is still needed.
• Continue work with ORD on rapid bioassessments.
• Continue working on support and appropriate linkages for mining and
agriculture NPS issues.
• Continue work on a national strategy for integrating stormwater
program with NI’S.
• Develop better and more outreach materials for NFS.
• Consider holding joint meetings with States and Regions, similar to
the Clean Lakes meeting, once every year or two.
• Continue to support Regional NI’S contacts — these contacts are very
important to Regions.
• National monitoring program within NPS — need to keep a close
watch on success.
• Need to discuss with Regions the issue of federal consistency in the
NPS program.
• Need to continue pushing clean sediment criteria.
• Gulf of Mexico Program needs points of contact if they are to be a
national demonstration program
24
-------
Monitoring
• Monitoring mission statement (including program guidance and
interagency activities) is still very important.
• Continue work on standard 305b reporting by states.
• Continue work on training opportunities for STORET and other
related programs. Concerns about 5-year schedule for modernization
effort — that states will develop own systems within that time.
• Continue work on TMDLs with OST and ORD, particularly TMDLs for
NPS.
• Need to address recent issues to make waterbody tracking system
operational.
• Continue to work with USGS on NAQWA, and continue to strengthen
ties with EMAP.
• Stay on top of other related Agency initiatives, like OPPE
Environmental Statistics group.
• Monitoring Branch is focused on improving relationships with ESDs —
don’t forget about appropriate communications with Water -- need
shared ESD/ Water vision.
25
-------
DIVISION AGENDAS: WETLANDS DIVISION
• Need immediate information on opportunities to work with Federal
Highway Administration on new resources for wetlands mitigation.
• Need to build linkages with related agency initiatives on landscape
approaches and the habitat cluster.
• Need to look for opportunities to build relationships with states and
work on state capacity for the program.
• Continue work on mitigation banking.
• Continue outreach efforts to the farming community.
• Some progress on clearinghouse idea — still need materials on
wetlands values geared to a public audience.
• Still need enforcement training.
• Is anyone addressing seagrasses?
26
-------
NATiONAL PRIORITIES
What two or three issues should OWOW be addressing that could have the
most impact on continued environmental progress in your Region?
1. Demonstrate that OWOW is a credible force and can work as an organization
-- effective use of some integrator like the Watershed Protection Approach.
2. Promote the WPA among AAs and other Agencies. Provide the flexibility
and resources to make the program work.
3. Aggressive activity on the Clean Water Act reauthorization in conjunction
with the Regions.
4. Revive the National Coastal and Marine Policy.
5. Continued promotion of volunteer monitoring programs and other public
participation activities to develop local stewardship.
6. Support for agricultural pollution prevention work and technology transfer
of NI’S and 319 funded projects.
7. Identification and use of environmental indicators to measure program
success. Completion of the monitoring mission statement.
8. Integrate the Wetlands programs within an overall landscape approach.
9. Develop technology to appropriately categorize wetlands — other than on-the-
ground surveys — like remote sensing, NWI data base overlays.
10. Develop a policy framework for NI’S.
11. Flexibility in addressing stormwater- .related NI’S issues.
12. Develop a greater awareness of state fiscal problems and build capacity.
13. Work on NPS mining, agricultural and hydromodification issues, coupled
with an attention shift away from the coast.
14. Living resources protection through WQ standards.
15. Integration of coastal programs.
16. Define a uniform assessment and priority setting system across OWOW.
17. Get the Wetlands program out of politics.
18. Budget process improvements, $ out sooner and delegation of appropriate
programs to the Regions.
19. Continuing support — resources and other — for NFl’ implementation.
20. Policy on disposal options for contaminated dredge material — near shore
versus offshore.
27
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
28
MEMORENDW (
SUBJECT: OWOW FY92 Regional Customer Survey
FROM: Louise P. Wise, Director — 2frU.A .7’—(_.
Off ice of Policy and Comniünication
TO: Addressees
As Bob indicated in his February 27, 1992 memorandum, we are
conducting a followup customer survey to see whether our services
to you have improved since June 1991 and to invite new suggestions
for improvement. We will discuss the results with you during the
OWOW National Program Meeting scheduled for May 5, 1992.
I have enclosed the new survey instrument as well as a copy of
the results of the last survey for your review and reference. Ms.
Ginger Webster, our consultant who conducted the last survey, will
once again be conducting the telephone interviews. She will be
calling to schedule an interview time with you between April 6 and
17, 1992.
We appreciate your time and cooperation in participating in
the survey and look forward to a full and open exchange of the
results in May.
Enclosures:
Survey instruments
Results of FY91 survey
-------
Addressees:
Reg 1. Ron Manfredonia, Chief, Water Quality Branch
Carol Wood, Chief, Monitoring/Environmental Study Branch
Reg 2 Mario Del Vicario, Chief, Marine and Wetland Protection
Robert Vaughn, Chief, Water Standards and Planning Branch
Richard Spear, Chief, Surveillance and Monitoring Branch
Reg 3 Jon Capacasa, Depute Director, Chesapeake Bay Program
Richard Pepino, Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch,
Victoria Binetti, Chief, Program Support Branch
Joseph T. Piotrowski, Chief, Permits Enforcement Branch
Robert Kramer, Chief, Environmental Monitoring Branch
Reg 4 Stallings Howell, Chief, Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Doug Lipka, Director, Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Reg 5 Ken Fenner, Chief, Water Quality Branch
Jim Giattina, Deputy Director, GLNPO
Valerie Jones, Chief, Monitoring and QA Branch
Reg 6 Norman Thomas, Chief, Federal Activities Branch,
Richard Hoppers, Chief, Water Quality Management Branch
Jim Steibing, Chief, Surveillance Branch
Reg 7 Kerry Herndon, Chief, Environmental Review Branch, Office
for Policy and Management
Larry Ferguson, Chief, Water Compliance Branch
Thomas Hollowway, Chief, Enviro. Mon. and Surv. Branch
Reg 8 Dale Vodehnal, Chief, State Program Management Branch
Reg 9 Loretta Barsamian, Chief, Wetlands, Oceans and Esturales
Cat Kuhiman, Chief, Water Quality Branch
Reg 10 Ron Lee, Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch
Jack Gakstatter, Chief, Office of Coastal Waters
Tom Wilson, Chief, Office of Water Planning
Bienvenido Eusebio, Chief, Ambient Mon. and Analysis Br
-------
OWOW CUSTOMER SURVEY
In preparation for the May Branch Chiefs meeting, OWOW is
conducting a followup customer survey to determine our
responsiveness to the concerns identified in the June 1991 survey,
as well as identify new areas where improvements are needed. A copy
of the results of the June 1991 survey is enclosed.
Interviewees should include Regional Branch Chiefs responsible
for the wetlands, ocean and coastal, nonpoint source and water
monitoring programs. Branch Chiefs can include other managers and
staff in the interviews as appropriate.
I. Improving Services to the Regions:
a. Please rank from 5 (excellent) to 1 (poor) the following
OwOW services in each major program area:
Budget planning and funding processes
Legislative strategies and Congressional liaison
National tools, such as policies, regulations and
guidance
Enlisting assistance of other programs
Technology transfer and outreach
Overall administration, including administrative
services, program priorities and working
relationships
b. In your opinion, have OWOW services in each of these
areas improved, declined or stayed about the same since
the last survey?
c. Do you have any suggestions for improving OWOW support
in any of these areas?
II. Improving Communications between OWOW and the Regions
a. Please review the suggestions made in the last survey
on pages 17-19 of the summary report. Has OWOW been
responsive to these suggestions?
b. Do you have any new suggestions that OWOW should
consider?
III. Responsiveness to other Regional suggestions
Please review the suggestions and comments from pages 20-26
of the summary report? Are there suggestions or comments
that you would like to re-emphasize?
-------
IV. National Priorities
What two or three issues should OWOW be addressing that
could have the most impact on continued enviromental
progress in your Region? Please be fairly specific.
-------
OWOW’s TOM Plan DRAFT
Objectives:
Through the use of the TQM philosophy and tools, OWOW is striving
to:
• Better satisfy customer requirements (both internal and external)
• Increase the satisfaction, motivation, and skills of its workforce
• Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its work processes
Plan:
1. Leadership and Commitment
The OWOW management team, led by the Director and Deputy
Director, is committed to using TQM principles in every aspect of
OWOW ’s work. To demonstrate its commitment, the management
team (consisting of the Director, Deputy Director, Division and STaff
Directors) will operate as a steering committee to guide and
establish policy with respect to the application of TQM principles.
The management team will regularly schedule time at team
meetings to discuss TOM implementation issues, including the
implementation of this plan.
The management team will also lead by example. To increase their
ability to do this, OWOW managers will increase their knowledge of
the TQM tools and principles until they become comfortable using
them routinely in their work.
2. Infrastructure
OWOW’s infrastructure for promoting quality principles consists of
the following:
OWOW’s Management Team (OD, DOD, DDs, and SD5) - is responsible
for establishing Office-wide OATs, providing resources, and tracking
implementation of OWOW’s TOM plan.
-------
OWOW’s Quality Coordinator - is responsible for coordinating
training, refresher and advanced seminars, user-group sessions, and
torn mu n i cation s.
OWOW’s Quality Consultants - are responsible for advising OWOW
members on the use of TQM tools and team leading.
3. Education
All OWOW managers have been trained in the EPA Executive Course.
In addition, two members of OWOW have been trained as Team
Leaders. Most OWOW staff received TQM training before the EPA
Basic Course became available. OWOW is now planning three large
training sessions to retrain staff who want it and to train those who
have not yet received the training. For these trainings, OWOW will
“benchmark” the TOM training model used by Xerox Corp. and will
require that immediate supervisors of those staff being trained
participate as co-facilitators in the training (along with an EPA-
trained facilitator). This will serve the dual purposes of further
familiarizing the supervisors with the tools and demonstrating their
commitment to applying TOM principles.
After all staff have received this initial training, OWOW will
concentrate its training efforts on Team Leader training for OAT
team leaders and seminars and user-group sessions for those
interested in more in depth training. OWOW will also identify and
train a number of Quality Consultants to assist OATs.
4. Focus and Rollout of Improvement Efforts
OWOW’s management team will oversee selection of “core” processes
needing evaluation by dross-divisional OATs. To date the
management team has established OATs to address training,
rewards, distribution of funds to the Regions, and space. These
OATs will be lead by Team Leaders and will be assisted by an OWOW
Quality Consultant.
These office-wide improvement projects will be sponsored and
monitored by OWOW’s management team. Their progress will be
tracked like any other work of the office: during quarterly office
reviews, management retreats, and in OD/DOD briefings. Their
selection will be based on information gathered in OWOW’s customer
and staff surveys, as well as preferences expressed by staff during
-------
staff retreats. Systems for measuring the effectiveness of
improvements made will be established.
In addition, each Division or branch will be encouraged to establish
OATs for “work processes” within their control.
5. Information and Communication
OWOW’s Quality Coordinator will take responsbility for
communicating information about OWOW’s TOM-related activities to
OWOW staff. The coordinator will be responsible for establishing
seminar and user-group sessions on TOM. In addition, OWOW will use
its OWOW Highlights to regularly report information on
implementation of TOM principles to its internal and external
customers.
6. Measurement
Borrowing from Federal Express’s system for measuring the health
of its “people, service, and profits,” OWOW is undertaking three
areas for measurement and continuous improvement: (1) its
employee satisfaction; (2) its customer satisfaction; and (3) its
program results.
With respect to OWOW’s employees , OWOW has and will continue to
conduct an annual survey (around January) to gage satisfaction and
identify areas for improvement. With respect to customers , OWOW
has (for two years) and will continue to conduct an annual Regional
customer survey (in April) and to discuss the results at its annual
National Program meeting (in May). With respect to program results ,
OWOW will use strategic planning to establish goals, determine
action plans, and identify measures of progress toward those goals.
OWOW will strive to have these measures in place by FY93.
7. Systems Alignment
OWOW has identified the following systems for alignment with TOM
principles: OWOW’s strategic planning, in-house and Regional
measurement and accountability systems, and human resource
systems (such as rewards, promotions, performance reviews, and
training). All of these systems are being reviewed by Agency-wide
groups (e.g. Budget Reform Task Force and the Human Resource
Systems Alignment OATs). While keeping informed of these agency-
-------
wide efforts, OWOW will proceed to incorporate quality principles
into those systems within OWOW’s control.
-------
4
-------
Headquarters Support
Regional Teams
and Champions
Steering Committee
HQ & Regional
Managers and
Champions
Regional
Implementation
Subgroup
Support Regional
projects and
facilitate
communication with
Regions
John Pai
(260-8076)
HQ Support Team
Chair - Louise Wise
(260-7166)
WATERSHED
-*•
Technical Support
Subgroup
Develop and evaluate tools
(e g , GIS, models, remote
sensing, monitoring, and
targeting)
Elizabeth Jester
(260-7046)
Bruce Newton
(260-7074)
Partnership Development
and Outreach Subgroup
Open and improve
communication with
stakeholders
Glenn Eugster
(260-6045)
Janet Pawlukiewicz
(260-9194)
Operational Program
Integration Subgroup
Identity actions to
promote and support
watershed programs
within EPA, State
and interstate
agencies
Jim Home
(260-5802)
PROTECTION
• An Integrated, Holistic Approach •
-------
WATERSH ED
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
PROTECTION
•An Integrated, Holistic Approach•
-------
What is a Watershed?
A watershed is a geographic area within which water drains to the
same central point, such as a stream, river, or lake.
Key characteristics include:
• Form of landscape
• Rocks
• Soils
• Ground water and surface water
• Climate and precipitation
• Land use and land cover
• Human population
WATERSHED
PROTECTION
• An Integrated, Holistic Approach
-------
WATERS H ED
PROTECTION
• An Inte9rated, Holistic Approach
What is a Watershed?
-------
‘What are the Problems in
Watersheds?
Sources of environmental stress include:
- Habitat destruction
- Hydrologic alterations
- Point source pollution
- Nonpoint source pollutants
- Groundwater contamination
- Waste dumping
WATERSH ED
P ROTECTI ON
An Integrated, Hollstk Approach
-------
I I
What is the Goal of the
Watershed Protection
Approach?
WATERS H ED
• To maintain and improve the health and
integrity of aquatic ecosystems using
comprehensive approaches.
PROTECTION
An Integrated. IlolislIc Approach
-------
Key Elements of the
Watershed Protection
Approach
Problem Identification
Identify the primary threats to human and ecosystem health
within the watershed.
Players
Involve the people most likely to be concerned or most able to
take action.
Integrated Actions
Once solutions are determined, the players take
corrective actions in a comprehensive, integrated manner.
WATERSHED
V
PROTECTI ON
An Integrated Hollstk Approach
-------
What are EPA’s Goals?
• Work in selected areas to demonstrate watershed
protection approach
• Integrate Federal and State programs to support
watershed protection
• Promote a broad understanding of the approach
• Provide tools and measure success
WATERSH ED
PROTECTI ON
I
An Integrated. Hollitic Approach
-------
Relationship to Existing
Environmental Programs
• Not a new program, but an effort to align, coordinate, and
build upon existing programs
• Funded through a variety of programs
• Complements other targeting programs
WATERSHED
PROTECTION
• An Integrated Holistic Approach
-------
EPA Steps to Date
• Established organization for watershed protection
• Issued Watershed Protection Approach Framework Document
• Regions selected initial watershed projects
• Working to align and coordinate Federal programs
WATERS H ED
PROTECTION
V
An Integrated. Hollstk Approach
-------
A System Gone Awry
WATERS H ED
PROTECTI ON
• An Integrated, Holistic Approach
-------
4/14/92
THE WATERSHED PROTECI1ON APPROACH (WPA)
Headquarters Organization
January - December ‘92
Headquarters Support Team
Chair: Louise Wise, OWOW (260-7166)
Members: Representatives of all OW offices
Base Program Integration Subgroup
Purpose:
To identify actions to be taken to promote and support watershed
programs within EPA, State, and interstate agencies
Chair: Jim Home, OWEC (260-5802)
Members: Louise Wise, OWOW
Sandy Germann, OWOW
Mark Curran, OWOW
Rob Wood, OWEC
Jim Taft, OWEC
Don Brady, OWOW
Bill Painter, OPPE
Diane Davis, OW
Partnership Development and Outreach Subgroup
Purpose:
To open, improve, and maintain communication with potential
stakeholders, including other federal agencies, state and local
governments, and nongovernmental organizations.
Co-Chairs: Glenn Eugster, OWOW (260-6045)
Janet Pawlukiewicz, OWOW (260-9194)
Members: Mary Blakeslee, OST
Jan Gallagher, OGWDW
Sandy Germann, OWOW
Diane Davis, OW
Hal Wise, OWOW
I
-------
4/14/92
Regional Implementation Subgroup
Purpose:
To maintain communication with Regional champions, to support
development of Regional frameworks and projects; to analyze
individual projects in terms of what actions HQ needs to take to support
projects.
Chair: John Pal, OWOW (260-8076)
Members: Don Brady, OWOW
Rob Wood, OWEC
Carl Reeverts, OGWDW
Technical Support Subgroup
Purpose:
To develop tools and provide training and support on existing tools to
Regions, States, and other interested organizations
Co-Chairs: Bruce Newton, OWOW (260-7074)
Elizabeth Jester, OWOW (260-7074)
Members: Bob King OWOW
Russ Kinerson, OST,
Amy Sosin, OWOW
Clive Davis, OGWDW
2
-------
4/14/92
PROPOSED ACTION PLAN ITEMS
HQ Support Team
HQ Support Team Meetings—group meets monthly (Mondays, 11:15-
12:45) to coordinate WPA activities, address any outstanding issues, and
brainstorm
Long-Term Strategic Plan—to begin planning FY93-95 activities,
including coordinated budget and program planning; focus on
institutional changes in States and other agencies; tech transfer; and
technical guidance
Annual Report—summary of steps taken over FY 91-92 in EPA HQ and
Regions to promote and support watershed approaches; analysis of
lessons learned.
John Pal, OWOW
Draft October 92
20K (OWOW/PCS)
Operational Program Support Group
Watershed Project Support—select a few projects from States or Regions
that cut across OW/EPA programs and identify specific actions and
institutional changes required to break down barriers and support
watershed approach.
Mark Curran, OWOW
December 92
10K (OWOW/OCPD)
AS! WPCA and AMSA—promote approach with the states and
municipalities, breakdown barriers and document examples of state
basin-wide approaches
Jim Home, OWEC and Louise Wise, OWOW
92-93 project
40K in FY92 (20K each from OWOW/PCS and OWEC)
Federal Agency Workgroup—interagency workgroup established to
share information on watershed approaches and consider
recommendations for CWA reauthorization
Sandy Germann, OWOW
Recommendations by September 92
No AC&C
3
-------
4114/92
Wetlands staff also will discuss WPA at joint training with USDOT in
April and May, USCOE in June
Glenn Eugster, OWOW
No AC&C
Training Module—workshop to develop skills in carrying out watershed
protection projects, possibly to include targeting methods, constituent
and consensus building, sources of funding
Sandy Germann, OWOW
Pilot FY92
20K (OWOW/OCPD)
Partnership Development and Outreach Subgroup
Constituent meetings —arrange for Bob Wayland and Dave Davis to
meet informally with representatives from associations of state and
local programs, environmental groups, and affected parties to discuss
philosophy of watershed approach, pros and cons, special needs, and
interests
Janet Pawlukiewicz, OWOW
Quarterly— November, February, June, September
No AC&C
Slide show—overheads, 35mm color slides, and text for presentation of
concept to constituent groups and other interested parties
Janet Pawlukiewicz, OWOW
Overheads / Slides—April; Script--Mid-May
5K (OWOW/PCS)
Newsletter—insert in News Notes to inform Regions, States and others
of watershed activities; includes “success and failure stories”
Janet Pawlukiewicz, OWOW
Quarterly (Mar, June, Sep, Dec)
No AC&C
WPA Conference—Plan EPA-sponsored national conference to promote
the watershed approach and evaluate progress to date; to document
successful approaches and projects; and to help develop technical and
programmatic tools for implementation of watershed projects
Janet Pawlukiewicz, OWOW
(December 92 or January 93)
$30K (OWOW/PCS)
Conference Sessions, Exhibits, and Brochure Distribution
see attached preliminary list
4
-------
4/14/92
Geography Awareness Week—EPA and National Geographic Society
The project is a 2-tiered training and education project based upon
existing state geography alliances previously established by NGS.
1) Summer 92—workshop aimed at increasing primary and secondary
school educators’ knowledge of water resource issues and establishing
partnerships between educators and water managers. Workshop
particpants will enhance packet developed jointly by EPA and NGS.
Educators are committed to providing training to their colleagues
within the states.
2) November 15-21 ‘92--Geography Awareness Week
Theme: Geography: Reflections on Water
Classroom activity packets distributed to 150,000 educators, nationwide.
Janet Pawlukiewicz, OWOW
No AC&C
Watershed Users Group on Bulletin Board System (BBS)
Ongoing starting April
Hal Wise, OWOW
30K (OWOW/AWPD)
$25 GIS of Watershed Projects
map EPA watershed projects
Janet Pawlukiewicz, OWOW
May 92
No AC&C
Inventory of Watershed Projects
Establish criteria for sratershed projects to be induded in database,
prepare data collection form, collect information through News Notes
and Bulletin Board System, and compile database. Include geographic
descriptors for eventual incorporation in GIS.
Data collection Summer 92; database Nov 92
Hal Wise, OWOW
20K (OWOW/AWPD)
Artides in Newsletters
News Notes—Feb 92
Coastlines—Feb 92
Pollution Prevention
Insight EPA
Anne Robertson, OWOW
No AC&C
5
-------
4/14/92
Regional Implementation Support Group
Quarterly videoconference calls with Regional contacts
John Pai, OWOW
Feb. May, Aug, Nov
No AC&C
FY92 Regional Project Analysis—detailed information on 2 or 3 Regional
watershed projects selected for initiation/implementation in FY92 to be
used to analyze what specific actions might be taken to support regional
projects (see Watershed Project Support under Operational Program
Integration Subgroup)
John Pai, OWOW
August 92
No AC&C
Regional Frameworks—support development of 2-3 Regional
frameworks for watershed protection
John Pai, OWOW
Region 8-1st draft August 92-$25K (OWOW/PCS)
Region 3—to be scheduled—$25K reserved (OWOW/PCS)
Regional Reviews—obtain updates on WPA during OWOW Regional
reviews
OWOW staff
No AC&C
Technical Support Subgroup
Targeting Handbook—a document describing the value of targeting,
technical approaches for large-scale assessment of conditions and
selection of priority watersheds, and potential programmatic
application. The handbook may also include risk-based approaches,
data sources, use of GIS, case studies, etc. Policy directions related to
303(d), 319 and other base program obligations will be addressed in a
concurrently-issued memorandum.
Peggy Michell, OWOW
Draft April 92; Final June 92
Watershed Handbook—overview of steps in watershed planning,
discussion of technical and institutional approaches, annotated
bibliography, sources of data.
Amy Sosin, OWOW
Draft July 31, ‘92, Final November 92
6
-------
4/14/92
50K (OWOW/AWPD)
Compilation of GIS Case St-udies—Directory with short cases studies on
EPA, state, and possibly local applications of GIS.
Bob King, OWOW (may be done through the Regioal GIS workgroup
chaired by Ben Eusubio with assistance by Mason Hewitt, Las Vegas)
Draft June 92; Final August 92
No AC&C
Environmental Indicators for WPA Projects—Guidance on
environmental indicators to measure trends and programmatic success
for watershed projects
Elizabeth Jester, OWOW
Draft October 92; Final December 92
No AC&C
State Program Implementation Cost Efficiency Study—Study on the cost
implications and potential improvement in efficiency associated with
shifting water quality program implementation to a basin approach
Don Brady, OWOW
Draft ; Fmal
60K (OWOW/PCS)
OTHER IDEAS
1. Inventory State approval criteria and implementation techniques
under the Surface Water Filtration Rule
OGWDW
2. Write up NEP Demonstration Projects as case studies for WPA
OWOW
3. Directory of Expertise and Information Sources
Try to find a PMI to assemble a directory of who to call for information
concerning significant problems in other agencies, national experts on
various topics, contacts for sources of data
John Pai, OWOW
Contingent on finding a PMI
7
-------
4114/92
Conference Sessions, Exhibits, and Brochure Distribution
Conference Sessions
Coastal Society, April 7, DC
Private Landowners Workshop (WSSP /WD / OWOW), Fall
National Congress of American Indian, Diane Davis, DC, Dec 1-6
Exhibit at Conferences
Tribal Management Conference, May 19-22
LTNCED—Brazil, June
Audubon, June?, DC
? ECO World, June 14-17, DC
Water Environment Federation, LA Sep 20-24
Brochures at Conferences
AWPD Enhancement of State Lake Management, IL May 6-9
Shaw 200 Water Quality International, May 24-30 DC
Shaw 1000 American Water Works Association, Canada, June 18-24
Shaw 2000 National Education Assoc, DC July 4
Shaw 500 National Assoc. of Counties, MN July 9-11
who 200 National Env. Health Assoc., Winnipeg July 12-17
Shaw 200 National Conference of State Legislatures, OH July 26-31
Shaw 100 National Assoc. of Towns and Townships, DC Sep 4-6
Shaw 200 International City Managers, NV Sep 13-18
Shaw 200 Env. Protection Information Conference, DC Oct 20-23
Shaw 500 Nati Rural Water Assoc., KY Oct 26-28
Shaw 200 American Public Health Assoc., DC Nov 8-12
W D Private-Landowners Workshop, Fall
Brochure available through Wetlands Hotime
8
-------
\ Water Quclity 2000 ACO== :
I
K cOR!tNTMJM
April 23, 1992
TO: Water Quality 2000 Member Organizations
FR: Tini Williams, Project Director
RE: Phase III Report - Ratification
I am pleased to transmit the final draft of the Water
Quality 2000 Phase III Report. This report is being sent to all
voting Member Organizations for ratification. Eight-five percent
of the voting Member Organizations must approve the report before
it can be adopted. The deadline for responding is July 23, 1992 .
The final draft report includes changes made by the Steering
Committee after the February 13-14 Member Congress. As you will
-recall, over 70 amendments to the January draft report were
submitted at the Member Congress. Some were acted on, but most
were referred to the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee
met on February 20, March 5-6, March 30, and April 10 to address
theso- amendments. Each issue was d ss d nd acted upon in a
consensus fashion, and no votes were required.
The report reflects a strong sentiment among an extremely
diverse group of interests about the need for new directions in
U.S. policies and programs to protect surface and ground water
resources. The Steering Committee believes the report will, make
a positive contribution to the national water policy debate and
provide a good basis for implementation and outreach efforts in
Phase IV of our project.
We need your help-in two specific areas:
1. Ensure that the report receives timely
consideration within your organization .
The Steering Committee established a 90-day ratification
period based on the results of a survey sent to all Member
Organizations. The vast majority of organizations r ponding
reported that they could act on the report within this time
period. A few organizations said they would need longer, in
each case based on a specific board or committee meeting date.
At the Steering Committee’s request, I will contact these
Po 601 W 1he Street. Alexondda, Wgin o 22314 • (703) 684-2418 • FAX: (703)684-2492
-------
April 23, 1992
Page 2
organizations in the next two weeks to explore the possibility of
an alternative approval process that will allow them to meet the
July 23 deadline.
In determining y iir organizatThn’s response, we suggest
the same criteria used to define consensus on the Phase II
Report: Although each and every statement in the report may not
be completely in concert with each organization’s perspective,
the organizations agree that, taken as a whole, the report
constitutes a representative and balanced approach that will lead
to improved water quality and is consistent with the Water
Quality 2000 Vision and Goal.
The Water Quality 2000 Articles of Agreement allow for
minority reports signed by two or more voting Member
Organizations to be printed along with the final report. The
Steering Committee has approved guidelines for submitting and
accepting minority reports (see attached). It is the Steering
Committee’s hope that the amended report can be ratified without
the need for any minority reports.
2. Tell us what your organization can do to help
publicize and implement the recommendations
in the report .
In additionto ratifying the report, we are asking that each
Member Organization commit to at least one program or activity to
help publicize and implement the recommendations. This could
include a conference session or speaker, coverage in your
publications, or some other activity focused on the overall
report or a particular subset of recommendations.
We are planning a meeting for mid-June to focus specifically
on implementation activities. If your organization would like to
be involved in this meeting, give me call.
I am available to answer any questions you may have about
the report, changes made since the January draft, and potential
implementation activities. In addition, I will be happy assist
in any other way I can, including meeting with you or your
organization to discuss the report or our future plans.—-I- can be
reached at (703) 684—2437 or (703) 684—2418. Thank you for your
continued support of Water Quality 2000.
P.S. -— We are also continuing our fund raising efforts,
including seeking funds to print and distributing the ratified
report. Any suggestions in this regard would be nost welcome.
-------
April 23, 1992
FACT SHEET
Water Quality 2000 Phase III Report
Recommendations for Improvement
The Water Quality 2000 Phase 111—Report presents—consensus
recommendations for improving U.S. surface and ground water
resource protection efforts. These recommendations support
Water Quality 2000’s vision and goal, adopted in May 1989:
VISION: Society living in harmony
with healthy natural
systems.
GOAL: Develop and implement an
integrated policy for the
nation to protect and enhance
water quality that supports
society living in harmony with
healthy natural systems.
The report was developed through an iterative, work group
process that included over 100 individuals representing—the seven
Water Quality 2000 membership sectors (academia,
professional/technical societies, private sector interests,
public interest/conservation groups, and federal, state, and
- loc&-1 government). Five Challenge Groups met approximately five
times each between March and August 1991 to identify potential
solutions to problems identified in an Interim (Phase II) Report.
A Member Congress held in June 199]. gave other representatives an
opportunity to review draft solutions and allowed for
coordination between the five groups.
In August 1991, a Steering Committee began the task of
integrating over 100 “solution statements” developed by the
Challenge Groups into a single report. This 20-member committee
met five times through January 1992 to produce a draft report for
review by the Member Organizations. A second Member Congress
was held in mid-February 1992. At this meeting over 70
amendments to the draft report were proposed. The Steering
Committee subsequently held four additional meetings to address
these amendments and complete the report.
Eighty-five percent of the voting Member Organizat i ps must
ratify the report before it can be adopted. A 90-day
ratification period has been established. Minority reports
submitted within the ratification period and signed by two or
more voting members will be published along with the report. The
Steering Committee reserves the right to request changes in the
format or length of ninority reports and to decline to accept any
that are not germane to the Phase III Report.
-------
April 23, 1992
Page 2
Chapter-by-Chapter Review of the Phase III Report
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary proviues an overview of the report’s
major conclusions and recommendations. The summary may be
distributed as a “stand-alone” document as well as being included
with the full report.
Chapter I - Causes of Water Quality Problems and Impediments to
Solutions
This chapter summarizes the findings of the Interim (Phase
II) Report as a preface to the recommendations presented in
chapters II, III, and IV.
Chapter II - National Water Resources Policy - A First Step
This chapter presents Water Quality 2000’s major
recommendation: An integrated national policy to protect of
su,tface and ground water resources that incorporates three
overall strategies:
• Preventing pollution and water resources
degradation;
• Increased individual and collective
responsibility for water resource protection;
and
• Planning and managing water quality and
quantity on a watershed basis.
Specific recommendations are included under each of these
three strategies. In the pollution prevention section, needed
actions in the industrial, agricultural, energy, transportation,
land development, and household sectors are discussed.
Chapter III - Getting from problems to Solutions - The Tools of
Chanae
This chapter presents 85 detailed recommendations, organized
under eight headings: education and traintngr pollution
prevention; wise resource use; managing growth and development;
increased scientific knowledge and improved technologies;
eliminating gaps, overlaps, and conflicts in regulations and
legislation; strengthening existing federal programs; and
providing incentives and financing for water quality
improvements.
-------
April 23, 1992
Page 3
An explanation of issues either not addressed or not agreed
by Phase III participants appears at the beginning of Chapter IV.
Some recommendations appearing in Chapter III also appear in
Chapter II. The Steering Committee decided to include them in
both places for emphasis.
Chapter IV - A Management Approach for Solving Water Quality
Problems
This chapter discusses the roles of various actors —
including federal, state, regional, and local governments, in
implementing art integrated water quality policy. A series of
specific recommendations for enhanced federal government
leadership and improved coordination between federal agencies are
presented.
Chapter V - Next Steps - Implementing A New National Water
Resources Policy
This chapter presents a call to action. It reviews the
major themes of Phases II and III, calls for implementation of
the Phase 111 recommendations, and commits the ratifying
organizations to this goal.
Appendices
The printed final report will include several appendices and
not attached to the current draft. These include: an
explanation of the governance and structure of Water Quality 2000
(cited as Appendix A in the current draft); a list of Member
Organizations; a listing of Phase III Challenge Group and Member
Congress participants; a list of Steering Committee members and
their affiliations; and a list of financial contributors.
-------
Water Quality 2000
Minority Report Guidelines
Status: Approved by Water Quality 2000 Steering Committee,
November 3, 1991
Section XV of the Water -Quality 2000---Ar-ticles of Agreement states
that “minority reports adopted by two or more of the members of
the Congress will be printed along with the final report.”
In order to implement this provision, the Steering Committee has
adopted the following guidelines:
1) All minority reports must be germane to Water Quality
2000 and the Phase III Report.
2) Minority reports should be as specific as possible in
relating dissenting comments to a particular section of
the Phase III Report.
3) Minority reports should be as brief as possible,
preferably one single-spaced typed page or less.
4) Minority reports must include the names and signatures
of representatives from at least two voting Member
Organizations.
5) Minority reports must be submitted within the deadline
established by the Steering Committee. (July 23, 1992)
6) If a report is submitted within the established
deadline but does not conform to items 1 through 4
above, the Steering Committee will return the report to
the originating organizations to be revised and
resubmitted.
-------
Water Quality 2000
Steering Committee Members
Robert Adler
Senior Attorney and Director
of Clean Water Project
Natural Resources Defense
Council
Steering CiORIi ttee Vice C2iair
Judy Campbell Bird
Environmental and
Energy Study Institute
John P. Burt
Associate Deputy Chief
for Programs
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
John B. Coleman
Environmental Issues Manager
E:I duPont deNemours &
Company
Peter L. deFur, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Environmental Defense Fund
G. Edward Dickey, Ph.D.
Acting Principal Deputy
Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works)
Clark Duffy
Assistant Director
Kansas Water Office
Nancy Foster, Ph.D.
Director, Office of Protected
Resource and Habitat Program
National Marine Fisheries
Service - NOAA
Frank B. Friedman
Vice President
Health, Environment & Safety
Occidental Petroleum
Corporation
Margot W. Garcia, Ph.D.
Chair, Department of Urban
Studies and Planning
Virginia Commonwealth
University
Rep. American Planning Assn.
Steering Co ittee Theasurer
Jerome B. Gilbert, P.E.
Consulting Engineer -
American Academy of
Environmental Engineers
James B. Groff
Executive Director
National Association of
Water Companies
Robert L. Herbst
President
Lake Superior Center
Joe J. Mayhew
Director, Environmental
Programs
Chemical Manufacturers
Association
Robert E. Moore, P.E.
Deputy Commissioner
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
Carolyn Hardy Olsen, P.E.
Commissioner, City of Atlanta
Department of Water and
Pollution Control
Rep. Assn. of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies
Ruth Patrick, Ph.D. -
Francis Boyer Chair of
Limno logy
The Academy of Natural
Sciences
-------
Ann Powers
Vice President and General
Counsel
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Ernest C. Shea
Executive Vice President
tional Association of
onservation DistiTcts
P... .1. H. Woodruff, P.E.
Prt .dent and CEO
EnviL oninental Resources
Management, Inc.
Rep. Water Environment
Federation
steering Committee chair
Phase 11 Challenge Group
Chairs
John B. Pearce, Ph.D.
Deputy Director
Northeast Fisheries Centei
National Marine Fisheries
Service
Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems
Richard Wedepohi,_P.E.
Director, Lake Management
Section
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Rep. North American Lake
Management Society
controlling Runoff from Urban
and Rural Lands
Jeffrey Foran, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Medicine anc tith
Care Sciences
George Washington Univ sity
Rep. Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry
Focusing oñ1 oxic flstItiTéflts
Kenneth J. Miller, P.E.
Vice president/Assistant
Director of Municipal Water
Management
CH2M Hill
Rep. American Water Works
Association
Providing Safe Drinking Water
W. Lamar Miller, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Environmental
Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Protecting Groundwater
3/24/92
-------
Water Quality 2000
Phase III Report
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
April 1992
This draft is now being reviewed by the Water Quality 2000 members,
and has not been officially ratified.
DRAFT
2000
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT— DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . 8
CHAFFER 1 .
Causes of Water Quality Problems and Impediments to Solutions .......
The Condition of the Nation’s Waters and Aquatic Habitat 19
Causes of Water Quality Problems 23
Impediments to Solutions 25
Getting from Problems to Solutions 26
Endnotes to Chapter I 27
CHAPTER II .
National Water Resources Policy — A First Step 28
A Historical Perspective on Water Policy 28
Historical Overview of U.S. Policies for Water Resources Planning and Management 29
A National Strategy for Protecting Water Resources 32
Preventing Pollution and Degradation of Water Resources 33
Agriculture 34
Forestry 39
Land Development 40
Transportation 43
Households 44
Energy 45
Industry 46
Individual and Collective Responsibility for Water Resources 50
A Watershed Basis For Water Quality Planning and Management 51
Recommendations 55
Summary 59
Endnotes for Chapter II 59
3
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT-- DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
CHAPTER m .
Getting from Problems to Solutions — The Tools of Change 62
A. Securing Commitment Through Education and Training 63
Encourage Public Education to Promote a Conservation Ethic (A-28, A-39, A-2 1) 64
increase Environmental Education in Elementary, Secondary, and
College Curricula (A-20) 65
Public Education on the Effects of Individual Actions on Water Quality Should Be Given
Higher Priority by Government Agencies and the Media (D-8) 67
Promote Education on Land Stewardship Practices (A-22) 68
Educate Farmers and Provide Landowners about the Economic Potential of
Wetlands (A-18, A-19) 68
Encourage Full Disclosure of the Scope and Cost of Providing Safe
Drinking Water (D-9) 69
Build Commitment to Water Supply Funding and Action (D-l0, D-20) 70
Water Professional Training Programs (D-15,D-16) 71
B. Preventing Pollution 72
Promote Pollution Prevention for Agriculture
(G-2, G-6, G-20, R-l, R-2, R-3, R-5, R-17) 73
Conduct the Cosmetic Appearance of Perishable Commodities Study Mandated
by the 1990 Farm Bill (R-7) 77
Revise Policies and Regulations that Allow Domestic Livestock Grazing in
Sensitive Riparian Zones on Public Lands (A-43) 77
Promote Pollution Prevention for Industrial Sources 78
Promote Source Reduction for Household and Commercial Sources (T-2) 81
Pollution Prevention Plans as a Condition of Small Business
Administration Loans (G-22) 82
Prevent Leaks from Pipelines (G-24) 82
Encourage Beneficial Use of Dredged Material (A-27) 83
Reduce Surface Transportation Impacts on Aquatic Resources (A-30, A-38) 84
Control Plastic Debris 85
C. Promoting Wise Use of Resources 86
A National Water Efficiency Policy (S-7) 86
Non-potable Water Reuse Policies (D-3) 89
4
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT— DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
Improve Energy Efficiency in Society (A-37) 90
Economic Incentives to Promote Utility Energy Conservation (A-7) 92
Establish Economic Incentives to Promote More Efficient Management of Public Resources
(A-41) 92
Improve Recycling and Reuse of Household Wastes (S-b) 93
Beneficial Uses of Biosolids (S-8) 95
D. Managing Growth and Development 96
Prevention of Low-density Sprawl (R-12) 96
Waterfront Development Controls (A-32) 98
Critical Habitat and Riparian Zone Restoration (A-3) 99
Better Accounting of Relationship Between Land Use and Groundwater Quality (G-30) . . 100
E. Increasing Scientific Understanding and Improving Technologies 101
Initiate Detailed, Long-term Water Quality Monitoring Programs in Representative
Watersheds to Advance the Science of Watershed Planning and Management (M-2) . . . . 101
Develop and Adopt Biocriteria and Biological Monitoring (A-6, A-33, T-8) 102
Increase R&D for Restoration of Degraded or Converted Aquatic Habitat and
Groundwater (A-i) 104
Increase Funding of Basic and Applied Research in Water Efficiency and
Water Resources Management (D-7, D-17, D-19, D-25) 105
Improve Water Structures to Provide Water Quality and Natural
Resources Benefits (A-9) 106
Increase R&D on Vegetated Aquatic Treatment Systems as Treatment Units
for Agricultural and Other Waste (A-10) 107
National Study on Practical Land-use Planning (A-24) 107
Municipal Point Sources: Research and Development (T-3) 108
Contaminated Sediments: Remediation Technologies (T-10) 109
R&D and Information Transfer on Sustainable Agriculture (A-23, G-7, R-4) 110
F. Eliminating, Resolving, and Filling Regulatory and Legislative Overlaps,
Conflicts, and Gaps 111
Broaden Protection of Wetlands (S-12) 111
Water-based Sedimentation Criteria and Standards (S-13) 113
Develop Ambient Water Quality Criteria for All Pesticides (R-8) 114
5
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23. 1992
Recognize Aquatic Ecosystem Integrity in Criteria and Standards (A-29) . 115
Conduct Groundwater Impact Studies for Federally Funded Projects
and Programs (G-9) 116
Promote Plugging Abandoned Wells (G-29) 116
Improve Regulation of the Bottled Water Industry (D-26) 116
improve Regulation of Point of UsefEntry Devices (D-27) 117
Provide for Efficient Collection, Transportation, and Disposal of Unwanted
Household Hazardous Waste (G-27) 118
Restructure Federal Commodity Programs to Remove Disincentives
for Stewardship (R-6, G-25) 119
Implement Policy and Program Reforms to Improve Small System Performance
(D-11, D-12, D-13, D-14, D-23) 120
Establish Greenbelts and Buffer Zones to Protect Riparian Habitats (A-4) 121
improve Fishery Management (A-8) 122
Develop and Enforce National Septic System Standards (A-15) 123
Encourage Local Septic Control Districts (G-28) 124
Identify Toxic Sediment Hot Spots and Conduct Remedial Actions (T-9) . . 125
Require Controls on New Above-Ground Storage Tanks (G-31) 126
Require Well Testing as a Condition of Sale (S-3) 126
Revise State Water Laws to Allow Maintenance of In-stream Flows (A-14) 127
Develop Water Rights Law Based on a System of State Permits (S-4) . . 128
G. Strengthening Existing Federal Programs 129
Point Sources: Effluent Guidelines (T-7) 129
Point Sources: Permit Funding and Improvements (1-6) . . 130
Point Sources: Compliance Tracking (1-5) 130
Point Sources: Compliance Maintenance (1-4) 131
Pretreatment of Hazardous Constituents (1-12) 132
State Water Quality Standards Promulgated for Toxic Constituents (‘l’-l 1) 133
Prevention of Spills by Waterborne Transport (A-26,A-36) 135
Reduce Deposition of Atmospheric Contaminants (R-I 1) 136
Expand Funding for Effective Federal Wetlands Programs (A-12) 137
Enhance the Rote of Native American Tribes in Water Quality Programs . 137
6
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
H. Providing Incentives for and Financing Water Quality Improvements 138
Financing Watershed Planning and Management (S-i 1) 140
Tax Incentives and State Revolving Funds to Promote Small Water System
Financing (D-22, D-24) 141
Expand Federal Economic Incentives to Agricultural Owners of Wetlands and
Waterbodies (A-17) 143
Full-Cost Pricing and Enterprise Accounting (D-18, D-20, D-21) 143
Financial Guarantees Against Pollution Caused by Operating Coal or Hard
Rock Mines (R-14) 145
Abandoned Hard Rock Mine Reclamation Fund (R-13) 145
Endnotes for Chapter III 146
CHAPTER IV .
A Management Approach for Solving Water Quality Problems 149
The Roles of the Government — Federal, Congressional, Regional, State, and Local 149
Federal Role 149
Recommendations for Improved Federal Leadership on Water Resources 150
The Federal Role in Implementing Other Actions 152
The Role of Congress 153
The State Role 154
The Regional Role 156
The Local Role 156
The Role of State Legislatures 157
Intergovernmental Decision Making 158
Recommendations 158
The Role of Academia 159
The Role of Professional Organizations 159
The Role of the Private Sector 160
The Role of the Media 160
The Role of Individual Citizens 161
Endnotes to Chapter IV 161
CHAPTER V .
Next Steps — Implementing a New National Water Resources Policy .... 162
7
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
Executive Summary
Water Quality 2000 is a cooperative effort of more than 80 public, private, and nonprofit
organizations. In 1988, we began a four-phase effort to develop an integrated national policy for
U.S. water quality and surface and ground water resource protection. This policy supports Water
Quality 2000’s vision -- a society living in harmony with healthy natural systems. Our Interim
Report, published in June 1991, identified problems with current water quality policies and
programs. This report builds on that foundation to present consensus recommendations for
improvement, as developed by over 125 individuals serving on five working groups and a
Steering Committee. During the next phase of our work, Water Quality 2000 and the
participating organizations will transmit these recommendations to Congress, the Executive
Branch, state and local governments, business and professional leaders, and others whose actions
influence water quality. A complete description of the process by which Water Quality 2000 is
organized and governed is included in Appendix A.
THE CONDITiON OF THE NATION’S WATERS AND AQUATIC HABITAT
The Interim Repoct concluded that progress has been made in improving the condition
of the nation’s waters over the past 20 years, but, nonetheless, the national goal of “fishable and
swimmable” waters has not been attained in many areas. Moreover, much work remains to
achieve the broader, overall objectives of a wide range of water legislation, including the broad
objective of the Clean Water Act — to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation’s waters.
Conclusions about the condition of the nation’s waters are complicated by the fact that
data on water quality and the health of ecosystems are incomplete. Data on the release of
contaminants is incomplete, covering only a fraction of all waters and typically, a small number
of pollutants. The lack of such basic information leads to conflicting assessments of our
progress. Evidence indicates that progress is bthng made. Nonetheless, reports demonstrate that
surface waters are contaminated by siltation, nutrients, organic matter, and hazardous
materials”; groundwater contamination results from animal wastes, fertilizers, pesticides, arid
other agricultural sources, from industrial sources such as manufacturing processes, leaking
underground storage tanks, and spills, and from interaction with contaminated surface waters;
and wetlands and riparian areas continue to be destroyed or degraded by a wide variety of
human activities. Some aquatic ecosystems are also stressed by changes in physical habitat,
altered flows and water tables, overharvesting, and introduced species.
“The word “hazardous,” when used in this report, is not intended to refer to any specific
statutory definition but instead is used broadly to mean any materials that, when released, are
harmful to public health or the aquatic environment.
8
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE. OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
CAUSES OF WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
The fundamental causes of current water quality problems lie in seemingly unrelated
aspects of life: the way we farm, produce, consume, transport people and goods, and plan for
the future. Many aspects of modern life and our past practices put pressure on water quality.
Until recently, these activities proceeded with little recognition of the degradation they caused
to surface waters, groundwater, and aquatic habitat. When the conflicts between these activities
and water quality were recognized, they were resolved through relatively narrow efforts focusing
on the direct sources of impairment but not necessarily the root causes of the problem. Water
Quality 2000’s vision will be achieved only if we reshape societal functions in ways that are
compatible with protecting water resources.
Sources that contribute to current water quality impairment include (in alphabetical
order):
• agricultural activities;
• community wastewater discharges;
• deposition of atmospheric contaminants;
• industrial activities, including the manufacturing, service, power generating, and waste
management sectors;
• land alteration, including logging, mining, road building, and commercial and
re idential development;
• stocking and harvest of aquatic species;
• transportation activities, including shipping, surface transportation, automobiles,
pipelines, dredging, and facilities construction and operation;
• urban runoff, including municipal and industrial stormwater; and
• water projects, including dams, reservoirs, and channelization.
IMPEDIMENTS TO SOLUTIONS
In addition to societal factors, the Interim Report identifies seven impediments to further
improvements in water quality caused by shortcomings in current water quality policies and
programs. In the near-term, opportunities exist to improve water quality by addressing these
seven impediments:
• Narrowly focused water policies impede holistic solutions that address cross-media
effects, the connection between groundwater and surface water and between water
quantity and water quality;
• Conflicts among water quality institutions impede collaboration between all levels of
government, the private sector, and individuals;
• Legislative and regulatoiy overlaps, conflicts, and gaps create inefficient or
ineffective solutions or leave water resources underprotected;
9
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23 1992
• Funding and incentives for clean water programs are Out of touch with public
opinion and actual need;
• Inadequate attention to the need for trained personnel has resulted in a serious gap
between a limited supply of trained professionals and a growing demand for their
s fls;
• Research and development programs are insufficient to meet the challenge posed by
the complexity of today’s water quality problems and the need to improve basic
scientific understanding; and
• inadequate communication has resulted in a public that is largely unaware of the
linkages between daily life and water resources, what they can do to improve water
quality, and why they should care in the first place.
GETtING FROM PROBLEMS TO SOLUTIONS
Public and private efforts to protect water resources have produced some successes, but
there is significant room for improvement. Some problems have been solved, others await the
results of programs only recently put in place, and others remain challenges for the future.
Water Quality 2000 identified 12 such challenges for further consideration in Phase [ II:
• Preventing pollution,
• Controlling runoff from urban and rural lands,
• Focusing on toxic constituents,
• Protecting aquatic ecosystems,
• Coping with multi-media pollution
• Protecting groundwater,
• Increasing scientific understanding of water quality issues,
• Promoting wise use of resources,
• Setting priorities,
I Providing safe drinking water,
• Managing growth and development, and
• Financing water resource improvements.
Our development of recommendations for improvement was organized around these 12
challenges. Five “challenge groups” were formed to address specific concerns identified in the
Interim Report against a backdrop of Water Quality 2000’s Vision and Goal adopted in May
1989. The recommendations developed by these groups included many of the traditional tools
for change -- education, incentives, regulations, training, and research. But there were also
several themes common to the work of all five groups that form the basis of an integrated
strategy for protecting surface and ground water resources.
10
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
National Water Resources Policy — A First Step
The United States has no unified national policy that observes the principles of integrated
land and water resource planning and management. Instead, our water policies comprise a
patchwork of narrow, often conificting objectives; jurisdictional conflicts mark both the
legislative and executive branches of the federal and some state governments; sound economic
principles are often missing from resource allocation decisions; and many sources of water
quality impairment remain unaddressed or underaddressed.
Water Quality 2000 concludes that a new national water policy is needed to integrate
planning and management to protect surface and ground water resources with related societal
activities under a watershed framework. This policy and a national strategy to protect water
resources must be based on the principles of pollution prevention and resource conservation and
must be designed to incorporate concern for water resources into every aspect of human activity.
We must strive to integrate institutions, ecology, economics, and where appropriate, technology.
We envision three strategies comprising our policy framework:
• Protecting water resources by preventing pollution;
• empowering all segments of society to contribute to water resource improvements
through increased individual and collective responsibility; and
• planning and managing water quality and quantity on a watershed basis.
In short, an integrated, national policy that supports society living in harmony with
healthy natural systems.
Preventing Pollution and Water Resource Degradation
Avoiding the degradation of natural systems is preferable, on ecological and economic
grounds, to mitigating damages after they have occurred. Generally associated with the industrial
sector, pollution prevention is equally applicable and useful as a guiding principle for other
sectors or sources of impairment. Water Quality 2000, therefore, recommends the
following:
Nonpoint Sources (Runoff and Leachate)
Congress should fully fund a strengthened and expanded national nonpoint
source (runoff and leachate) pollution prevention program under Section
319 of the Clean Water Act that encompasses all sources of runoff and
leachate including agriculture, land development, transportation, and
forestry. Program components should include (1) EPA-approved,
enforceable state programs to be implemented in conjunction with regional
watershed auzhorities, (2) a combination of voluntary and mandatory
targeted pollution prevention plan.s for individual land users, such as
farmers; (3) technical assistance programs administered by USDA for the
11
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
farm sector and other agencies as appropriate for the other sectors, and (4)
new federal/state revolving loan pro grains to help finance improvements on
individual tracts of land, such as farms or forest tracts.
Energy and Transportation
Water Quality 20(X)’s recommendations to promote pollution prevention in
the energy and transportation sectors include: (1) enactment of a federal
production tax credit for renewable energy supplies, (2) building and
equipment energy-efficiency standards; (3) incentives to stimulate the use
of mass transit in high-density urban areas; and (4) improved transportation
fuel efficiency.
Industry
To promote additional progress in pollution prevention for the industrial
sector, Water Quality 2(XX) recommends (1) increased incentives for
industry to implement pollution prevention, (2) the development offacility-
level pollution prevention plans; (3) voluntary steps by industry to review
and modify internal processes or end products; (4) government control of
product uses in appropriate situations; and (5) a national effort to develop
and refine ljfe cycle assessment analyses as a tool for identifying
opportunities for improved pollution prevention.
Households
A series of actions are recommended to reduce pollution from the household
sector: (1) industry should adopt product labelling practices that indicate
materials and energy efficiency associated with consumer products; (2)
local governments should undertake programs to make household pollution
prevention easier; and (3) Congress and state and local legislatures should
offer financial incentives to encourage individual actions to reduce
pollution.
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 provided a much needed first step toward
institutionalizing pollution prevention for all sources by declarng that pollution prevention was
a “national objective.” It will be critical for EPA and others to implement programs under this
Act in full recognition of the need for broad application of pollution prevention principles to all
media, all sources of adverse environmental effects, and all sectors of the U.S. economy.
12
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
Individual and Collective Responsibility for Water Resources
Water Quality 2000’s Vision and Goal can only be realized if the American people as
individuals and collectively as members of the community adopt a heightened sense of
responsibility for protecting water resources.
Although much can be accomplished through leadership and education, experience has
shown that purely voluntary behavior will not always change behavior sufficiently. Some people
will change their actions for altruistic reasons; others will require some incentive to do so. And,
invariably, some people and businesses will require more than incentives and education to take
responsible actions. The following actions will help ensure individual and collective
responsibility for protecting water resources:
Education — all levels of government, the media, trade, and professional societies
and academic institutions can help to educate individuaLs and businesses about
how their actions may degrade water resources and what actions can be taken to
reduce or eliminate those impacts.
Incentives and financial assistance — Often individuals and businesses want to
make changes to protect water resources but lack the financial resources to do so.
Facilitation — Government must make responsible behavior easier by, for
example, working with the private sector to provide for collection, recycling, and
proper disposal facilities for small quantities of hazardous waste.
Regulation — Regulation of some activities is a necessary pan of governmental
efforts to protect water quality and aquatic resources.
A Watershed Basis for Watershed Planning and Management
Most natural events and economic activities affect the quality of water resources
principally within watershed boundaries. As a result, watersheds constitute the most sensible
hydrologic unit within which actions should be taken to restore and protect water quality. In fact,
watersheds also may define the appropriate spatial boundaries for total environmental and
economic planning.
This approach provides the framework to evaluate natural resource problems using a
natural systems approach. Controls developed at the national and state level must be combined
with individually developed strategies for unique river basins, watersheds, and collection basins
or receiving waters. Implementation and funding of protection efforts within watersheds
motivates individual action and provides the public reasonable assurance that those asked to pay
for clean-up will also enjoy its benefits. Watershed-based management provides a far better
opportunity to resolve intergovernmental or inteijurisdictional conflicts, establish goals and
priorities through collaboration and consensus, and manage for results. Moreover, watersheds
13
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT — DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE. OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
allow for flexibility to address water quality/quantity problems and their interaction in different
climatic settings.
Under EPA and state leadership, we can point to several useful examples of watershed
planning, but more limited progress has been made in watershed manageme u. Consequently,
Water Quality 2000 recommends that:
• Congress should create a new national program of watershed planning and
managetnetu, including a mandate for implementation of activities as a
condition of participating in planning.
• Congress should impose no particular management form on the states and
should build upon existing watershed mechanisms. However, planning and
management institutions should be required for all 21 of the major rzverine
watersheds in the United States.
• Congress should encourage, authorize, and approve the creation of
interstate regional mechanisms, including joint federal-interstate compacts,
as requested by states to plan and manage water resources. Where
appropriate, watershed planning and management instirzaions should be
nested, reflecting the multiple orders of progressively larger watersheds.
institutions created to manage smaller watersheds should participate in
planning and management of the large watersheds to which they belong.
Such a nested hierarchy could be organized at the top with an wnbrella
planning institution for each major riverine watershed. These institutions
should include a mechanism to plan for protection of groundwater resources
that cross watershed boundaries.
• Many of the other recommendations contained in this report -- including
many of the pollution prevention recommendations -- should be implemented
as needed to support the goals of individual watershed plans. Other
activities particularly well suited for implementation under a watershed
framework include (1) land-use planning, (2) drinking water deliverj, (3)
operation of water resources structures, (4) range- and pastureland
management, and (5) urban lands management.
GETFING FROM PROBLEMS TO SOLUTIONS — THE TOOLS OF CHANGE
In our Interim Report, Water Quality 2000 identified several fundamental impediments
to achieving the nation’s clean water goals. At the conclusion of the report, these impediments
were recast as specific challenges to ourselves and the broader community. These challenges
provide a framework for organizing our 85 specific consensus recommendations.
Along with the three strategies for protection of surface and ground water resources
suggested above, these recommendations comprise what we believe to be a representative and
14
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT-DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE. OR QUOTE - APRIL 23. 1992
balanced call to action. But despite the broad scope of issues addressed, these recommendations
are still not comprehensive. Some important issues were either beyond the scope of Water
Quality 2000 or the expertise of the participants. These included international water quality and
water management problems, the effect of climate change on water resources, the need for a
U.S. population policy, and appropriate funding mechanisms for all Water Quality 2000
recommendations.
In addition, consensus was not achieved on every issue discussed. Issues where Water
Quality 2000 participants were unable to agree included: appropriate standards for control of
combined sewer overflows; the need for an outright ban on underground injection of hazardous
substances; the appropriate approach to prevent groundwater contamination from surface
impoundments not subject to current law; the need for comprehensive federal groundwater
legislation and national groundwater cleanup standards; and the role of risk assessment in
establishing water quality priorities. Other areas of disagreement are noted in the report. In
general, differences involved specific actions needed to implement agreed-upon goals.
Securing Public Commitment Through Education and Training
Environmental education for all ages can promote long-run societal changes that address
the causes of pollution. Environmental education and training programs should be offered to a
wide range of professionals, such as locally elected and appointed officials, legislators, industrial
and utility managers, journalists, and teachers. Water resources professionals will require
specialized training in natural resources fields, as will other natural resources managers.
Solutions lie in new programs of environmental education beginning in elementary school
and continuing throughout all levels of education and professional training.
Preventing Pollution
Pollution prevention is at the heart of Water Quality 2000’s Vision Statement and Goals.
Perhaps our greatest challenge lies in preventing pollution associated with runoff from rural and
urban lands. Preventing pollution from agricultural practices may return the most dramatic
improvements in water quality because of the vast land areas used for agricultural production
and the historical absence of attention paid to this source.
Solutions lie in implementing pollution prevention programs across all media and
providing incentives so that all sectors of society will adopt prevention practices as a way of life.
Promoting Wise Use of Resources
Using resources wisely is conceptually analogous to preventing pollution. That is, rather
than using water, energy, and natural and other resources wastefully and having to find more
of them as a consequence, using resources wisely from the outset recognizes their value to
15
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
society, reduces impairment of ecosystem functions and values, and builds individual
responsibility for protecting water resources.
Like pollution prevention, the potential to use resources more wisely exists in all sectors.
Consequently, long-run solutions ultimately lie in educatIng society — in changing the way
society values water and natural resources. In the near-term, solutions lie in government
programs, such as metering water use and others to improve the efficiency of water use,
economic incentives to promote utility energy conservation, and programs to increase recycling
of household waste and promote beneficial use of biosolids.
Managing Growth and Development
Inadequately controlled growth and development is the principal cause of water quality
and water resource degradation in coastal zones and riparian habitats. Many activities associated
with low-density development are potential sources of surface and ground water resource
contamination.
Solutions lie in comprehensive, growth management aimed at reducing low-density
sprawl, protecting aquatic resources from the effects of waterfront development, drawing
attention to the connection between land use and the quality of groundwater, and other measures
to protect aquatic resources from degradation associated with land development.
Increasing Scientific Understanding and Improving Technologies
Many current water quality problems can be solved with current technologies. In more
limited instances, technological innovation is itself an impediment. Also, additional progress in
water resource protection will occur only if we are prepared with a sound scientific
understanding of the interconnectedness of institutions, ecology, and economics. While
advancements in science and technology will have measurable near-term benefits, an even
greater return from such advancements can be expected within, perhaps, the next 10 to 20 years.
Solutions lie in strengthening basic scientific activities, such as data collection and
monitoring of the health of ecosystems, and in more applied endeavors, such as research and
development in new pollution prevention technologies, methods to restore degraded habitat, or
ways to evaluate the effectiveness of water conservation strategies.
Eliminating, Resolving, and Filling Regulatory and Legislative Overlaps,
Conflicts, and Gaps
While a mix of voluntary and mandatory programs is appropriate, all of Water Quality
2000’s Phase III Challenge Groups identified opportunities to improve our statutes and regulatory
programs. Recommendations are presented in this section with the recognition that the list of
improvements is incomplete. But because of the attention they received from hundreds of water
16
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT-DO NOT CIRCUL.4 TE, CITE, OR QUOTE-APRIL 23, 1992
professionals, our hope is that these recommendations address the most important overlaps,
conflicts, and gaps.
Recommendations include broader protection of wetlands and public water supplies,
development of water quality criteria for all pesticides, restructuring federal farm commodity
programs to remove disincentives for stewardship, improved regulation of the bottled water
industry, and development of national septic system standards.
Strengthening Existing Federal Programs
Many ongoing programs administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and others are working well or could be improved with
relatively minor changes. Still others have the promise of aecomplishing goals but face resource
constraints or political resistance.
This section highlights the many examples of such programs and makes recommendations
regarding the nature of improvements needed to strengthen and continue them. Not all programs
are covered; the absence of a program does not necessarily mean that it is not working or should
be discontinued.
Recommendations for strengthening existing federal programs include development of
effluent guidelines and standards for new and previously identified industries, adequate funding
for NPDES permit programs, pretreatment program improvements, state promulgation of water
quality standards for toxic constituents, prevention of spills by waterborne transport, and steps
to reduce deposition of atmospheric contaminants.
Providing Incentives and Funding for Water Quality Improvements
The financing systems established for water programs must recognize that, in the end,
we all contribute to water resource problems and we all must contribute to solve them. Although
specific funding mechanisms were not addressed, Water Quality 2000 endorses a renewed federal
commitment to financing water quality improvements, in part through general revenues. At the
same time, by reducing costs through pollution prevention, individuals and private enterprise
should gain some sense that remaining financing methods are relatively efficient and effective.
To the greatest extent possible, users of direct environmental services must be asked to
pay the full cost of supplying the service (with safeguards to ensure lifeline services for those
in need), in rough proportion to their individual levels of use; beneficiaries of investments in
clean water must be asked to pay for such improvements in rough proportion to their receipt of
benefits; and contributors to water quality impairment must be asked to pay for cleanup in rough
proportion to the costs they impose on ecosystems.
17
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE. OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
A MANAGEMENT APPROACH FOR SOLVING WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
Correcting the range of problems associated with U.S. water quality will require a long-
term strategy that specifies what exactly is to be accomplished, who is responsible for assuring
progress, and how incremental progress can be measured. It must recognize that all of society
contributes to water quality impairment, that all of society benefits from improvements, and that
all of society must contribute to solutions.
A sensible strategy will begin with several short-term actions--strengthening state and
local infrastructure, consolidating overlapping authorities, and simplifying decision-making
processes, for example. For the long term, however, solutions must engage all sectors of
society. All levels of government, industry, professional organizations, the media, and individual
citizens must all play a role.
NEXT STEPS - iMPLEMENTING A NEW NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES POLICY
This report and the Interim Report that preceded it present a wide-ranging discussion of
current problems, the causes of these problems, and steps that we must take as a nation to
achieve Water Quality 2000’s vision: society living in harmony with healthy natural systems.
Implementing this vision will in many instances require fundamental changes in our
governmental institutions, manufacturing or farming practices, and individual life-styles. The
Water Quality 2000 member organizations are ready to move forward with a broad agenda for
change that includes actions related to education, training, legislation, and regulation, science
and technology, financing and incentives, and basic societal change.
As we approach the 21st century, ensuring healthy ecosystems and an adequate and safe
water supply will require a sustained, collaborative effort by all sectors of society. Each of the
organizations ratifying this report is committed to working individually and collectively to meet
this challenge. We are optimistic we will succeed and urge all who care about protecting water
resources to join us in this effort.
18
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE. CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1S92
CHAFFER I I
National Water Resources Policy — A First Step
Solutions to remaining water quality problems begin with policy principles that are
molded into public and private programs by social, economic, and political forces. Water Quality
2000 has found ample evidence that a new national water policy is needed to integrate surface
and ground water resources planning and management with related societal activities under a
watershed framework. Based on the principles of resource protection and pollution prevention,
programs must be designed to change the nature of the relationship between our natural
environments and those that are artificially altered or used. Solving water quality problems - -
changing the way society values water resources — ultimately means incorporating concern for
water resources in the way we live, farm, travel, produce, and consume. We must strive to
integrate institutions, ecology, economics, and where appropriate, technology.
M4 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WATER POLICY
Much of the government and private activity in the [ 8th, [ 9th, and first half of the 20th
century focused on managing water quantity. Water quality concerns have become more
important in the second half of the 20th century. The boxed text on pages 111-2 through 111-4
traces the evolution of major U.S. policies for water resources planning and management.’
Since the birth of our nation, water policies have grown increasingly complex, as have
the number of institutions and regulations put in place to manage or control water quality, water
quantity, and aquatic resources. Water Quality 2000 has reviewed the basic principles that have
evolved over the last 200 years of U.S. water policy history and has adopted the following
principles as those needed to modify water quality efforts in the future:
• Water resources must be managed to sustain environmental values and the health of
the economy;
• Approaches to water resource protection must emphasize avoiding or minimizing
pollution and resource degradation rather than mitigating the effects of releasing
pollutants into or disturbing ecosystems;
• All levels of government and the private sector have a role in working together to plan
water use, conservation, and protection with the level of government most appropriate
to the problem principally responsible for implementing the solution; and
• Water resource protection efforts should focus on environmental results within
appropriate hydrologic units or watersheds, with successes and failures in attaining
water resources goals reported regularly to the public.
28
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23. 1992
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF U.S. POLICIES FOR WATER RESOURCES
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
1785 First interstate compact — adopted by state legislatures (Maryland and Virginia) to jointly
manage a river basin (Potomac) for mutual benefit.
1848 Swamp Lands Act — first federal/intergovernmental water resources management initiative.
Authorized land grants to states in lower Mississippi Valley that used proceeds from land sales
to construct flood control and drainage works.
1908/ Inland Waterways Commission/National Conservation Commission
1909 — recommended comprehensive water quantity and quality planning; equitable sharing of costs
among beneficiaries; consideration of relationship between water and land resources and; and
creation of National Waterways Commission to coordinate federal water policy and activities.
1912 National Waterways Commission — formed.
1917 Newlands Commission — authorized (never created) to coordinate federal water activities.
1918 Federal Power Act — mandated Section 308 reports: comprehensive water resources plans for
river basins (most plans focused on the need for large capital structures and water development
projects).
1930s National Resources Commission/National Resources Planning Board — developed water
management plans for most U.S. watersheds (but lacked authority to implement them).
1950 Hoover Commission — proposed, but never prevailed in combining almost all federal water
resources programs into a single cabinet department to minimize conflicts, centralize decision
making.
1953 Truman’s Water Resources Policy Commission — proposed, but never implemented joint
federal/state river basin commissions to address quality and quantity planning and
management.
1959 Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources — introduced concept of water
quality management to meet water quantity needs.
1961 Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources — recommended that federal
investment in water resources be split 80/20 for quality/quantity; coordinated
intergovernmental water resources planning for all major U.S. watersheds; federally funded
water research, periodic watershed-based assessments of supplyldemand, and grants to states
to simulate their particip tion. Considered by many a landmark report.
‘Note: only those statutes marking major milestones in the evolution of water resources
planning and management are presented in this list.
29
-------
DRAFTOOCUMENT -DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF U.S. POLICIES FOR WATER RESOURCES
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENV
(Continued)
1965 Water Resources Plannmg Act — created U.S. Water Resources Council to implement
national strategy for planning of water and related land resources in 21 water regions and
coordinate federal water policy. Abolished in 1980 after mixed success.
1968 National Water Commission — began five-year comprehensive study of U.S. water policy.
Report in 1971 recommended sweeping changes in outdated policies and programs, including
full-cost user fees to pay for water projects; shift to local water planning management where
benefits are localized;and implementation of the polluter pays’ principle.
1972 Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (Clean Water Act) — initiated four new water
planning programs; state program plans, municipal wastewater treatment facilities plans,
areawide water quality plan, and basin planning.
1976 National Commission on Water Quality — concluded that Congress underestimated resources
needed to attain clean water; planning process was not working; runoff controls did not exist;
intergovernmental responsibilities in flux.
1987 Clean Water Act Amendments — introduced Section 320 National Estuary Program to plan
for and manage the restoration and continued protection of estuaries of national significance,
on a watershed basis. Also introduced Section 319, state nonpoint source management planning
on a watershed basis.
• Policies and programs should adopt a holistic resource protection perspective, taking
into account the intercorinectedness of quality and quantity of surface water,
groundwater, and aquatic and related land resources;
• Programs to protect water resources should include a mix of voluntary and mandatory
approaches;
• A sound scientific understanding of natural and artificially altered environments and
their interaction is critical to improving the quality of both; and
• Beneficiaries of investments in water resources should generally pay the full cost of
these investments, while contributors to water quality impairment should fully
internalize the cost of their polluting activities.
‘Note: only those statutes marking major milestones in the evolution of water resources
planning and management are presented in this list.
30
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT — DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
While many have conceptualized similar principles and progress has been made, not all
water quality goals have been achieved. The reasons for not accomplishing all of our goals are
not surprising: they include differences in policy approaches between Congress and the
Administration; lack of funding; changes in political philosophy from one administration to
another; lack of a sustained “crisis” to keep the public focused on solutions; and abuses of a
policy principle for purely political reasons.
For a variety of reasons, we believe that the nation is ready to and, indeed, must now
embrace a new water policy and act upon it decisively. Only recently, for example, have public
opinions overwhelmingly supported environmental values. In part, this is because population
densities, especially in fragile coastal regions, have begun to overburden the carrying capacity
of local ecosystems. Water quality problems appear more acute under such conditions, leaving
in some areas little or no room for additional stresses and ultimately posing significant
impediments to economic well-being and reductions in the quality of life. Droughts of a
magnitude once thought endemic only of arid western regions are now much more common
across the nation, even in some heavily developed, but water-rich eastern watersheds.
Moreover, the gap is clearly growing between the level of environmental quality the public
wants and the resources available to deliver it. 2 Congressional mandates continue to expand
programs and require investment to improve the quality of the nation’s waters. Yet budget
deficits at all levels of government make it increasingly difficult — some say impossible-- to fund
all these mandates. Under such circumstances, choices are limited: keep resources constant and
accept a lower quality environment; improve the environment by shifting spending from other
programs; or demand more efficient solutions to water quality problems.
In our call for a new national water policy, Water Quality 2000 has chosen the third
strategy because it is the only one that can be sustained in the longrun. We have structured our
own deliberations to include the diversity of views needed to implement such a strategy, with
individual members from all disciplines and perspectives ready to take action on our
recommendations. Our call for a new national water policy will be different from previous
efforts only to the extent that participants in the Water Quality 2000 process take individual and
collective responsibility for action. All 86 Water Quality 2000 members are committed to do just
that.
The fundamental principles listed earlier are the building blocks of water resources policy.
As such, they form the foundation for the full range of recommendations presented in this
report. When these principles have been observed in current water resources policies and
programs, we can point to many successes. When we have ignored these fundamentals or have
failed to fashion field-level programs based on them, water resources protection programs have
been less successful. For example, the United States has no unified national water policy that
observes the principles of integrated water and land resource planning and management within
which, individually and collectively, citizens and institutions work to prevent contamination and
protect ecosystems. Instead, today’s water policies comprise a patchwork of narrow, often
conflicting objectives; jurisdictional conflicts mark both the legislative and executive branches
of the federal government and some states; sound economic principles are often missing in
31
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR GUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
resource allocation decisions; and many of the causes of water quality impairment remain under-
or unaddressed.
A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR PROTECTING WATER RESOURCES
The single most important recommendation to emerge from Water Quality 2000’s Phase
ifi Challenge Groups is a call for a new national policy for total protection of surface and
ground water resources based on the concepts of:
• Protecting water resources by preventing pollution;
• Empowering all segments of society to contribute to water quality improvements
through individual and collective responsibilities; and
• Planning and managing water quality and quantity on a watershed basis.
In short, an integrated national water policy that supports society living in harmony with healthy
natural systems.
In this and the following chapter, Water Quality 2000’s recommendations for establishing
new policy directions and implementing new programs recognize that some existing systems
work well while others do not. Building from a current base, our challenge is to formulate a new
water policy for the nation that addresses the entire resource, engages all levels of government
and the private sector, and encourages harmony between the natural and artificially altered
environments. It must strengthen on-going activities where needed and coordinate them with new
tools to improve water quality. Putting principle into practice will require weaving these
activities into the fabric of American society through education, research, and accountability.
Chapter III addresses these and a range of related issues, and recommends the tools to
implement these strategies such as education, incentives, finance, management, regulation, and
training. General observations on each of the strategies are presented here.
Integrating Groundwater and Surface Water Policy . An integrated, holistic national
water resource policy will promote the protection of both surface and groundwater. A national
policy that recognizes the earth’s hydrologic cycle will allow us to account for the interactions
between groundwater and surface water as we develop goals and programs to protect surface
water, wetlands, drinking water, and aquatic life. Currently, for example, most groundwater
protection programs ignore the impacts of groundwater contamination on surface water and
ecosystems.
Integrating groundwater into water resources policy requires the recognition of a number
of fundamental principles:
• Groundwater and surface water are interconnected;
• Groundwater is an essential national resource that must be protected;
32
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23. 1992
• It is harder to monitor and clean up groundwater than surface water; and
• Issues involving groundwater and surface water quantity and quality are fundamentally
linked.
To address these principles, Water Quality 2000 recommends that Congress adopt a
national ground water protection policy. This policy should include a national goal of
groundwater protection. It should also incorporate the specific federal actions recommended in
this report.
Historically, most groundwater protection activities have occurred at the state level. There
is disagreement, however, as to the adequacy and effectiveness of these programs. Under a new
national policy all states should adopt comprehensive groundwater protection programs that
integrate groundwater and surface water protection activities. These programs should emphasize
pollution prevention strategies and include adequate groundwater mapping and monitoring,
controls on all significant sources of groundwater contamination, controls on groundwater
withdrawals, and effective enforcement and other compliance tools. Water Quality 2000 could
not agree on whether the federal government should play a more comprehensive role in
establishing and overseeing groundwater protection programs.
Preventing Pollution and Degradation of Water Resources
Just as an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, avoiding the degradation of
natural systems is preferable, on ecological and economic grounds, to mitigating damages after
they have occurred. Preventing pollution and water resource impairment before they become
management problems may be the most efficient and effective means to move toward total
resource protection and, ultimately, toward a sustainable society.
While most observers are probably familiar with the implications of pollution prevention
for the industrial sector, pollution prevention is equally applicable and useful as a guiding
principle for other sectors or sources of water quality impairment. Pollution prevention is
particularly well suited to address contaminated runoff from agriculture and urban lands.
Applications of pollution prevention in the agricultural sector may be the only practical and
economical way to reduce widespread impairment of aquatic ecosystems from farm practices.
Agricultural pollution prevention means altering farm cropping systems and management
practices to reduce off-farm transport of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides that have harmful
effects on ecosystems and to protect riparian zones and channel morphology. In terms of urban
and suburban land development and transportation, preventing pollution means designing
structures to minimize physical disturbances to ecosystems and prevent runoff of harmful
constituents from contaminating waterbodies.
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 provided an important first step toward
institutionalizing pollution prevention for all sources by declaring that pollution prevention was
a “national objective. “ It established a hierarchy of environmental protection priorities as
national policy, whereby pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever
33
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE. CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
feasible; where pollution cannot be prevented, it should be recycled in an environmentally safe
manner; in the absence of feasible prevention and recycling opportunities, pollution should be
treated; disposal should be used only as a last resort.
In one provision, the Act directed EPA to facilitate the adoption of source reduction
techniques by businesses and federal agencies, establish standard methods of measurement for
source reduction, and investigate opportunities to use federal procurement to encourage source
reduction. It will be critical for EPA and others to implement programs under the Act in full
recognition of the broad application of pollution prevention principles to all media, all causes
of environmental degradation, and all sectors of the United States economy.
In particular, Water Quality 2000 has identified pollution prevention solutions suited to
agriculture, forestry, households, land development, transportation, energy, and manufacturing.
Detailed recommendations in each of these areas are presented in Chapter LU, and an overview
is presented in the following sections.
Agriculture
Polluted runoff and leachate from agricultural activities has been identified as a major cause
of impairment of our nation’s waters. In addition to direct effects on water quality, runoff from
agricultural activities can also cause physical habitat alterations and flow and riparian
modifications. Although some progress has been made, the “way we farm” must be changed to
prevent pollution to the maximum extent possible, while maintaining economically viable
farming operations. Preventing pollution is as applicable to agriculture as it is to industry and
the payoffs are potentially much larger. To date, scant attention and limited resources have been
dedicated to addressing the effects of agriculture on water quality. While agriculture is widely
considered to be the nation’s biggest nonpoint cause of water pollution, it is often treated
separately and less strictly than other sectors.
A strategy for this sector includes establishment of a national, water-quality-focused,
framework to prevent agricultural pollution, the strengthening of state level agricultural runoff
and leachate prevention programs, and local, waterbody or aquifer-specific implementation based
on watershed approaches and farm-level resource management plans.
Most agricultural control practices have evolved from the need to minimize loss of
productivity and costs associated with increased production. Water quality benefits have been
a secondary consideration. As a result, existing efforts have been fragmented, narrowly focused,
and have failed to effectively integrate prevention strategies for pollutants derived from soil loss,
nutrients, and pesticides. However, there are indications that contamination from agricultural
sources can be significantly reduced.
The failure of the federal government and most states to develop and fund comprehensive
agricultural runoff and leachate pollution prevention programs has been a major impediment to
agricultural pollution prevention. More specifically, the lack of technical and financial assistance
34
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
and educational outreach efforts and the purely voluntary nature of many runoff and leachate
pollution prevention programs have clearly hampered implementation efforts.
Things must change on the farm, but there can be no quick fix. Federal and state
governments must make agricultural pollution prevention a priority and give it increased
attention and funds. In addition, individual farmers must become more knowledgeable and aware
of the consequences of their actions and the alternatives that are available. Ultimately, it is
farmers who must act to protect water quality and it is in their own economic and environmental
best interest to do so.
A National Framework for Agricultural Pollution Prevention . Congress must make a
clear statement that the prevention of agriculturally derived water pollution problems is a
national priority. The most important single step would be for Congress to amend the Clean
Water Act and transform the existing, unevenly implemented Section 319 program into a fully
funded pollution prevention program. This program should have a priority commitment similar
to programs now in place to prevent and control water pollutants derived from point and solid
waste sources.
Specifically, Congress should amend the Clean Water Act to strengthen Section 319 in the
following ways:
• Congress should designate EPA as the lead agency to develop a pollution prevention
framework as part of Section 319. In its role as lead agency, EPA must work with
other federal agencies to provide guidance and oversight needed to implement strong
state programs.
• EPA should require states within two years from date of enactment to develop, and
within five years to implement, comprehensive agricultural pollution prevention
programs with enforcement authority. These programs should incorporate pollution
prevention as their cornerstone and be one component of a state’s comprehensive
nonpoint source management program. These programs should be revised, updated,
and resubmitted to EPA for approval every five years. Approval should be at the EPA
headquarters level to assure consistency but should also recognize the variability
between the states and the need for flexibility. EPA’s approval process should include
input from USDA and other federal agencies as appropriate. State programs should be
required to include an implementation schedule with reportable milestones.
• EPA should be responsible for assuring that its program development and
implementation have input from and are coordinated with other affected federal, state,
and local agencies through some formal arrangement. EPA’s oversight should be
performed in close cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other
affected federal agencies. EPA should coordinate all reporting and review
requirements of other agencies.
35
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
• In consultation with USDA, EPA should develop water quality criteria for sediment,
nutrients, and pesticides so there will be a clear definition of the goals expected to be
achieved in individual streams, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater systems.
• EPA, with the participation of USDA, should be directed to undertake a study of the
major federal programs that affect farm policy and farmers’ decision making to ensure
their compatibility with the goal of preventing pollution from agricultural activities.
If federal programs are found to have the effect of encouraging runoff or leachate
problems, the study should recommend to Congress and the appropriate agencies
program modifications or termination to remove this effect.
• USDA should be the lead federal agency for implementation and technical assistance
at the local level.
• States should be directed to take mandatory and fully enforceable steps where
necessary to achieve water quality standards.
• Congress should authorize and appropriate Section 319 program development matching
grants at levels sufficient to assure adequate programs nationwide.
• Congress should establish new Section 319 grants to states to capitalize state revolving
loan funds for implementation of agricultural pollution prevention activities. These
capitalization grants should require a state match and provide states maximum
flexibility to direct loans to the highest priority watersheds, at terms that suit
individual needs.
• Congress should establish sanctions to help assure that all states develop and
implement approvable Section 319 programs that include agriculture. If EPA cannot
approve a state program, that state should lose eligibility for Section 319 funds. EPA
must then develop and implement a 319 program for states without EPA-approved
programs.
State Agricultural Pollution Prevention Programs . State agricultural pollution prevention
programs should, at a minimum, contain the following elements:
• Education . Many farmers are not aware of how their farming practices affect water
quality. Thus, education outreach efforts should be a primary component of all state
programs. Educational efforts should be broad-based to provide all farm operators with
basic information before farm-level efforts can be implemented.
• Program Assessments . A key element of agricultural pollution prevention is to give
greater priority to water quality improvements. The overall intent should be to target those
local and regional actions that provide the greatest improvement in water quality. This
strategy goes beyond water quality monitoring to effectively managing for environmental
results. Best management practices may be used, but these actions should be designed to
36
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
attain water quality objectives. In addition, regional, state, and national assessments must
be made to provide national accountability for our cleanup efforts.
• Research . Better research and development capabilities are needed to understand the
effectiveness of management practices and to develop new, more environmentally friendly,
agricultural techniques. As a beginning, states that may not have incorporated water quality
considerations into their recommendations for nitrogen and phosphorus use from all sources
should revise their current recommendations to ensure that water quality impairments and
environmental degradation do not occur. States need to coordinate with national research
efforts to avoid duplication. State research may be necessary to fill gaps that national
research efforts will not address.
• Monitoring . States should develop and implement monitoring systems that will enable
program managers to determine historical and seasonal background levels of natural
contaminants; set priorities for areas needing special attention; and monitor water quality
improvements following the installation of best management practices. To save costs and
encourage local level ownership, school and citizen monitoring should be encouraged.
Adequate sampling and analytical controls are necessary to ensure quality and accuracy of
results.
• Technical Assistance . States must work with USDA and universities to make technical
expertise and assistance available to farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural land
managers. Controlling agricultural runoff and leachate will mean changing the way we
farm, which will require increasing the number of professionals having knowledge of land
use-water quality relationships. Our ability to provide technical assistance and professional
guidance must be expanded so that individual farm operators can improve their
management practices and skills.
• Financial Incentives . Financial assistance and incentives should be a key component in
all state agricultural pollution prevention programs. Without financial assistance, many
farmers and ranchers will not be able to implement the necessary best management
practices to protect water quality. Financial assistance can take the form of tax credits,
cost-sharing through existing state and federal agricultural programs, or funding through
newly established state programs. In addition, state or federal programs that have the effect
of encouraging runoff or leachate problems need to be identified and terminated or
modified.
• Regulation . Effective agricultural pollution prevention programs will have a mixture of
voluntary and regulatory controls. While voluntary elements may be desirable, progress
in mary cases cannot be achieved through purely voluntary efforts. Where water quality
standards are being violated or where there is a probability of water quality standards being
violated, an iterative approach of implementing more stringent mandatory or regulatory
control measures should be adopted.
• Taraeting and Proaram Management . There is a pressing need to target limited
financial and technical resources at our most critical and valuable water resources and to
37
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CiTE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
impaired watersheds, with additional priority directed towards projects having strong local
support. A single, responsible agency at each level will need to be identified. All agencies
involved in targeting areas for pollution prevention measures and monitoring need to
closely coordinate, communicate, and cooperate. Implementation of comprehensive
improvement projects usually will begin at the headwaters of the watershed. To ensure
local involvement and ability to develop clear water quality objectives, many projects will
occur at scales of 40,000 acres or less. In some instances, implementation of projects as
large as 250,000 acres will be manageable.
• Penalties for Noncompliance . Where regulatory or mandatory approaches are required,
the responsible state agency should have the authority to impose fines, civil penalties, or
other sanctions for noncompliance. EPA should approve a state program only if the state
certifies that it has enforcement authority against individual farmers who fail to develop
and implement farm-level resource management plans in watersheds that meet the criteria
for mandatory preparation of such plans.
In addition to the financial assistance already discussed, EPA and USDA will need to
provide technical assistance to states in developing these comprehensive agricultural pollution
prevention programs.
The following types of activities should be eligible for federal support: (1) education for
farmers regarding how their farming practices affect water resources; (2) monitoring, research,
and development to target resources, measure progress, and develop new prevention methods;
and (3) technical assistance to farmers through conservation districts, the USDA Extension
Service, state conservation agencies, private industry, farm organizations, and non-profit groups
regarding the preparation of farm-level resource management plans; (4) the identification and
development of cropping systems, farming practices, and other measures; and (5) the
implementation and enforcement of these measures.
Farm-level Pollution Prevention . Every farm operator should be encouraged to go through
a holistic planning process for their farm operation that takes into account the water quality
impacts of various cropping systems and farming and livestock practices, including water
management.
Ideally, farm-level resource management plans should be developed for all farming and
ranching operations. One of the primary goals of these plans should be to ensure that water
quality impairment and environmental degradation does not result from agricultural operations.
The objective of plans should be to prevent leaching and runoff to the maximum extent possible,
while maintaining an economically viable farming operation.
To accomplish this objective, farmers should consider a wide array of technologically and
economically feasible systems and practices, and then select those that can function together to
meet their farming goals and prevent water quality impairment. These plans should include an
implementation schedule and should be approved by the boards of local conservation districts
or other designated approval authorities, according to minimum state standards. Plans should at
38
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
least address practices to prevent pollution from sedimentation, nutrient and pesticide handling
and application, animal wastes, and irrigation practices.
Farm-level resource management plans should be mandatory for all farms in watersheds
where surface waterbodies or groundwater systems are impaired or where there is a probability
that these waterbodies or systems will become impaired. Further, in watersheds that are not
determined to be threatened or impaired, if individual owner/operators are causing significant
pollution or are clearly violating water quality standards and the situation cannot be resolved
expeditiously by voluntary programs, these individuals should also be required to develop and
implement farm-level resource management plans.
Until EPA issues and the states adopt water quality criteria and standards for sediments,
nutrients, and pesticides, states will have to designate waterbodies and systems susceptible to
these pollutants. In watersheds where plans are mandatory for all farm operations, states can
target their efforts to address priority operations first and plans can vary in detail according to
these priorities and the size and complexity of the farm operations.
Forestry
Although forestland is recognized as being a major source of the nation’s higher quality
waters, the Clean Water Act, as amended, requires the control of runoff resulting from
silvicultural activities as one means of meeting goals of the Act. Runoff with potentially high
levels of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides can result from construction of logging roads, skid
trails, fire breaks; site preparation for tree planting; and from silvicultural operations themselves.
Thermal stress to streams also can occur when trees are removed from riparian watercourse
banks. Other major stressors are loss of physical habitat structure and low flows that result from
logging and the increased frequency of mass soil movements and sluice outs.
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act requires that state nonpoint source management plans
require the inclusion of goals and strategies for reduction of pollution caused by silviculture
activities. These state forestry runoff strategies should:
• Ensure implementation of BMPs chosen from among the many alternative strategies,
while including measures of accountability with reportable milestones to assure that
water quality goals are met;
• Adopt a holistic watershed approach focused on preventing, not remedying, pollution,
including specific water quality-based goals and a water quality prioritization system
for program implement2tion for each watershed;
• Promote implementation at the lowest practical levels of government, supporting
effective partnerships of landowners, industry, universities, and state and federal
organizations;
39
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
S Require that all publicly owned lands be managed as models, internalizing the costs
of water quality impacts, or conversely, the value of watershed protection, into timber
sale prices ; and
• Require the recognition of the value of maintaining land, including wetlands, in
forest cover, reforesting problem lands, establishing forested buffers, and the
retention or establishment of trees on floodplains or riparian areas.
The management plans should include components for (1) development of state BMP
handbooks; (2) forest-user education; (3) technical assistance on BMP design, installation, and
maintenance; (4) state or federal cost-share payments under USFS or other USDA programs;
(5) a mixture of voluntary and regulatory programs; and (6) program effectiveness tracking and
reporting.
To be implemented effectively, the program will need, among other things, adequate
funding and staff. In a recent survey by the National Association of State Foresters, 4 lack of
funding (32 states) and staffing constraints (28 states) were most frequently cited as barriers to
implementation of state forestry runoff management programs. Furthermore, 8 states reported
lack of political support as a bather and 18 of the 46 responding states indicated the need for
technical assistance to develop further their runoff control programs for forestry.
Land Development
Inadequately controlled land development contributes significantly to the impairment of
water resources, It is a principal cause of water quality and aquatic resource degradation in
coastal zones and riparian areas. Low-density development has been recognized as one of the
most destructive land use patterns because it eats up the natural landscape, requires extensive
infrastructure to support it, and leads to increased automobile use and stormwater runoff.
While agricultural sources may be the biggest existing runoff problem, land development
is the biggest future concern. In the framework of pollution prevention, dealing with land
development may be even more important, as evidenced by the huge costs estimated for
correcting problems caused by stormwater runoff and combined sewer discharges in already
developed areas.
Land use planning and growth management must be considered an integral part of
comprehensive pollution prevention plans. It is easier, more efficient, and much more cost
effective to implement a system of controls prior to development than to clean up the water
quality degradation after it has occurred.
Land use decisions have historically been made based largely on economic considerations,
without adequately taking into account the need to protect forests, wetlands, and other important
resource lands, or to avoid fragile and erodible soils, steep slopes, and other sensitive areas.
Government and the private sector must work together to correct existing problems and ensure
40
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT C1RCULA TE. CITE. OR QUOTE - APRIL 23. 1992
that communities of the future are planned better, built better, and designed to enable residents
to live in a manner that is more protective of land and water resources.
A National Framework for Land Developme u Pollution Prevention
A national strategy for preventing pollution caused by improper land development should
parallel and be integral to that recommended and adopted for agriculture and other sources.
At the federal level, Congress should amend Section 319 of the Clean Water Act to make
a clear statement that preventing water resource degradation from land development is a national
priority. EPA should again be identified as the single lead agency, requiring the states to develop
and implement, by a date certain, comprehensive pollution prevention programs for land
development activities. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act should also be strengthened to
protect, maintain, and increase our wetlands base from current levels, wherever possible, to fully
functioning and self sustaining wetlands.
State Land Development Pollution Prevention
State-level programs should have the same basic elements as those recommended for
agriculture. States, along with regional watershed authorities, should be the vehicle for providing
education, technical assistance, and regulatory oversight to ensure implementation and
enforcement at the local level.
State land development pollution prevention plans should be developed in conjunction with
affected federal, state, and local governments, watershed management entities, and the public,
and should at a minimum contain the following elements:
• Education . Many citizens, planners, and public officials are unaware of the relationship
between land use and water quality. Education on the hydrological and environmental
consequences of developing beyond the land’s or water’s carrying capacity (including
groundwater depletion or contamination) must be an integral part of land development
pollution prevention;
• Growth Management . A variety of regulatory tools and incentives are needed to
preserve open space and agricultural lands, encourage more compact development patterns,
and protect water resources from the effects of development. New development should be
directed to land areas which can support higher densities, minimizing problems caused by
urban sprawl and preserving sensitive ecological resources. In already developed areas,
further impacts should be minimized through establishment of increasingly more protective
measures;
• Transportation . States must recognize and address the role of highways in encouraging
low-density development. Newly developed areas must include transportation systems that
move people and goods while protecting air and water quality. Alternatives to automobiles
41
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE. CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
need to be provided, and roads and other transportation facilities must be designed and
Operated to reduce their impact on water resources.
• Urban Runoff . Effective techniques, such as on-site retention and use of vegetated
aquatic treatment systems (VATS), must be incorporated into new development. In already
developed areas, reducing the volume and contamination of urban runoff through these
techniques can also help to alleviate problems associated with combined sewer discharges;
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas . Wetlands, coastal zones, floodplains, and erodible
soils must be identified and protected from damage and destruction by land development
activities. Care must be taken to avoid shifting development from environmentally sensitive
areas to productive agricultural lands, leading to cultivation of less productive lands that
are more erodible and require greater inputs;
• Groundwater Recharge Areas . These areas need to be mapped and appropriate policies
developed to regulate land uses leading to groundwater pollution. These should include
siting criteria for newly developed areas and increasingly more-protective measures in
already developed areas;
• Greenbelts and Buffer Zones . Open space, forest cover, and green buffers provide
filters for pollutants, wildlife habitat corridors, and recreation areas. They should be
incorporated into any new land development. In already developed areas, efforts should be
made to assemble undeveloped parcels into larger tracts;
• Wastewater . Collection and treatment systems in newly developed areas should be
designed to facilitate the use of reclaimed water for irrigation of golf courses and other
open spaces. In unsewered areas, minimum standards for septic tank systems, innovative
treatment technologies, and self-financing local septic control districts should be
encouraged;
• Drinkin! Water Protection . Consumers must pay the full cost of providing safe
drinking water to newly developed areas. Efforts to prevent pollution and protect drinking
water sources on a watershed basis reduce the need for additional treatment and help keep
costs reasonable;
• Solid Waste Management . Landfills, incinerators, and other solid waste management
facilities must be located and constructed so as to prevent pollution of ground and surface
waters;
• Research . Government and academia must develop and/or refine integrated analysis
tools that consider economics, ecology, technology, and institutions for application by local
land use planners and zoning officials.
42
-------
DRAFTOOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
Local Land Development Pollution Prevention
Against the backdrop of state and federal mandates, local and watershed-based authorities
must take a proactive stance on growth and development by adopting, implementing, and
enforcing land use plans that are compatible with restoration and maintenance of high-quality
water resources and suited to the watershed in question. This may require the establishment of
new management authorities, such as stormwater utilities, and adoption of new or amendment
of existing land use plans to regulate activities in sensitive natural areas.
Transportation
New state and federal regulations (including the federal Clean Air Act amendments of
1990) that require all forms of transportation to operate with increased efficiency and reduced
levels of contaminant discharges are a major step in the direction of pollution prevention in the
transportation sector. Timely implementation of other Clean Air Act provisions also will foster
reduced pollution caused by transportation. Other types of government regulations may be
needed to attain these goals. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE), for example,
are among those factors principally responsible for increasing on-road automobile efficiency
since 1973. Continuous improvement in fuel efficiency will help to attain water quality
standards. Government intervention may be required to improve fuel efficiency while
maintaining vehicle size, performance, and safety. Some controversy remains, however, over
the standards that may be achievable, given current technologies. 5
Beginning now and for the longer term, transportation planning policies must focus on
moving people and goods with feasible reductions in energy use, emissions, and disruption of
aquatic resources and habitat. The promotion and use of carpools, vanpools, carpool lanes, mass
transportation, and bicycles instead of individual automobiles can offset demands for millions
of gallons of fuel and prevent the generation of a wide variety of pollutants and the degradation
of aquatic ecosystems normally associated with the transportation activities themselves and from
oil exploration and extraction and fuel production, distribution, sale, and use. Where
transportation systems are clearly needed, they should be planned and executed with the
protection of wetlands, riparian habitat, coastal waters, and ground and surface water resources
in mind. In short, state transportation agencies must comply with all applicable environmental
regulations and coordinate their activities early in the planning stages with state environmental
agencies.
Local transportation planners, as well as state and federal agencies and the private sector,
must do more to stimulate the use of mass transit in high-density urban areas. Examples of
appropriate incentives include gasoline taxes, expanded commuter parking facilities in urban
fringe areas, incentives for use of mass transit and carpools, and more stringent enforcement of
auto emissions regulations.
Individuals can also aid in reducing contamination by ensuring that automobiles are
properly tuned and operate on the highest quality fuels and lubricants possible. Avoiding
excessive acceleration, unnecessary idling, excessive speeds, and under-inflated tires leads to
43
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
increased fuel efficiency and reduced friction that, in turn, reduces the level of contaminants
released to the environment.
Transportation needs, and in turn, pollution caused by transportation, can be reduced
through cluster land-use planning that includes walking and biking access between home and
work and increased use of electronic communication devices for business purposes. The use of
salt to deice roadways also can be keyed to land use, with highly sensitive watersheds signalling
moderate or no use of salt for such purposes.
Households
In the short run, before the effects of citizen education are fully realized, governments may
have to impose certain programs to prevent pollution caused by the household sector. Options
include:
Product and Labellin! Standards . Existing product and labeling standards, such as fuel
economy standards for automobiles; appliance and plumbing fixture efficiency and labelling
standards to help save energy and water; and insulation and lighting efficiency standards for new
homes make it easier for consumers to purchase goods that prevent pollution. Additional
packaging practices now under consideration can help consumers to reduce the amount of
garbage they produce.
Programs to Make Pollution Prevention Easier . Given hectic, modern day life, even the
best-intentioned consumer may avoid responsible actions if they are inconvenient. For example,
recycling is far more likely when curbside pickup is provided than when trips to distant
collection locations are necessary (pickups should be integrated with regular garbage pickup to
avoid additional vehicle miles traveled). Householders are more likely to separate hazardous
waste when adequate collection facilities are provided. Access to yard waste compost from
government facilities will encourage the use of these materials over chemical fertilizers.
Financial Incentives . Often it is easier for individuals to prevent poilution when the cost
of doing so is not prohibitive or when a financial incentive makes it more desirable to do so. For
example, the government can help encourage water and energy conservation by providing tax
credits or deductions for investments in energy and water efficiency. The government can
discourage waste through pricing practices, such as use-based metering of water.
In the longer term, education is the key to citizens adopting practices in their homes, at
work, and during recreation that, taken together, will have the effect of preventing pollution.
Worldwide fossil fuel exploration, extraction, processing, and transport will be reduced, for
example, as households reduce energy consumption by improving the energy efficiency of home
lighting, heating, cooking, and cleaning. In turn, these conservation efforts will prevent aquatic
pollution normally associated with fossil fuel exploration, extraction, processing, and transport.
In many instances, preventing pollution will help to restore damaged ecosystems.
44
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CiTE, OR QUOTE—APRIL 23, 1992
Water conservation in the home also helps prevent degradation of aquatic ecosystems. A
wide range of inexpensive options to use less water are available to homeowners, with little, if
any, effect on quality of life. Examples include displacement devices to reduce water use in
toilets, low-flow shower and faucet heads, fixing water leaks, using commercial car washes that
recycle wash water rather than washing cars at home, or watering lawns early in the morning
to avoid excessive evapotranspiration. Water conservation reduces withdrawals from natural
systems, leaving more water for habitat and promoting biodiversity. Water conservation also
reduces the hydraulic loading on wastewater treatment plants, which in turn, may improve their
operational efficiency and lessen the need for expansion to accommodate population growth.
Recycling materials used in the home, such as newspaper, glass, aluminum and steel cans,
cardboard, and plastics, may minimize extraction of virgin materials and can reduce the
generally higher levels of industrial waste generation associated with manufacturing of products
from virgin feedstocks as opposed to recycled ones. 6 Using recycled paper in our businesses and
limiting or stopping wasteful paper use is also important. For example, it is estimated that the
energy needed to produce and distribute all the junk mail Americans receive in one day is
sufficient to heat 250,000 homes. 7 As consumers, we can encourage industries to “precycle,”
or reduce their use of excessive packaging, by demanding products that use less packaging,
where consistent with applicable federal and state requirements.
Households should be encouraged to use correct application rates or less harmful
substitutes for many pesticides, fertilizers, high-phosphate products, household cleansers, and
solvents. Reduced demand for harmful household chemicals will result in a reduced discharge
of harmful materials and nutrients to the environment. In replacing commonly used materials
with “home remedies” care should be taken that their interaction does not produce more harmful
conditions than would the replaced substitute.
Energy
Several energy-related pollution prevention strategies require actions by homeowners,
businesses, industry, and the transportation sector to reduce energy demands and consequently,
reduce the attendant pollution associated with energy resource exploration, extraction,
transportation, production, and use. Both mandatory and voluntary programs will be needed in
this sector. EPA’s on-going NGreen Lights” program, in which the agency is working with large
industries to replace conventional lighting systems with energy-efficient substitutes, is only one
example of an effective voluntary program.
Chapter III presents an array of recommendations for mandatory programs, such as least-
cost utility planning and amendments to rules governing cost-recovery for utilities to allow them
to earn a rate of return on investments in energy conservation comparable to their returns on
building new capacity. Other government actions to promote pollution prevention in the energy
sector include: 8 (1) a federal production tax credit for renewable energy supplies; (2)
government-mandated, “feebate” programs, where fees on the use of energy-inefficient products
are rebated to users of efficient ones; (3) government-set building and equipment energy-
efficiency standards; and (4) mandatory energy-efficiency programs for government buildings.
45
-------
DRAFTOOCUMENT-DONOTCIRCULATE. CITE, OR QUOTE-APRIL 23, 1992
In addition, the energy sector could prevent pollution and avoid some of the losses to
aquatic habitats by substituting non- or less-polluting sources of energy for fossil fuel or nuclear
energy production. Such substitutions are clearly complex in that they require evaluation from
many different perspectives in addition to water resources protection, including national security,
technological feasibility, regulatory acceptability, life-cycle analysis, and cost-effectiveness. In
Water Quality 2000’s view, under these multiple criteria, significant opportunities would exist
to promote wind, solar, and biomass energy.
As in the transportation sector, state energy agencies must demonstrate leadership in
compliance with environmental regulations. This will entail closer coordination with state
environmental agencies and incorporation of concerns for water resources earlier in energy
planning processes.
Industry
Until recently, Congress and EPA have focused their efforts on treating industrial waste
after the point of generation rather than preventing or reducing its generation in the first place.
Even through most are subject to permits, manufacturing sources still accounted for the release
of hundreds of millions of pounds of ha.zardous materials into waterbodies and transferred to
POTWs in l987-l989 . Nonetheless, industry has had a long history of preventing pollution
without identifying it as such; industrial engineers have sought ways to improve productivity,
which inevitably involved producing more product and less waste per unit of materials supplied
as input to industrial process.
In the past few years, however, pollution prevention statutes and escalating waste disposal
costs increasingly have promoted source reduction and recycling over waste treatment and
disposal. From the resource extraction or generation to the manufacture, use, and disposal of
hazardous constituents, opportunities may exist to reduce these constituents and to prevent their
release to the environment. As of October 1991, for example, Congress and 25 states had passed
pollution prevention laws, the majority within the fast three years. All state laws cover at least
the waste regulated by RCRA, and some laws include those defined in the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Most statutes stress outreach and
assistance in a collaborative facility planning approach. Other common program components also
are predominately non-regulatory: waste minimization curricula in colleges, information
exchanges, research grants, recognition programs, training, and expertise referral systems. Some
states require reporting. Some states, such as Massachusetts, after studying reports submitted
by industries for a number of years, may impose source reduction mandates.
A basic element in these programs in the use of a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory
means of having industrial facilities create and implement plans to prevent pollution within their
The word “hazardous,” when used in this report, is not intended to refer to any specific
statutory definition but instead is used broadly to mean any materials that, when released, are
harmful to public health or the aqqatic environment.
46
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE. OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
own facilities. Voluntary preparation of pollution prevention plans maximizes the ability of
industries to innovate pollution prevention policies. However, regulatory requirements can ensure
that all members of an industry evaluate pollution prevention alternatives within their facilities
to an equal degree.
Pollution Prevention Planning
Water Quality 2000 endorses pollution prevention planning statutes and programs. These
incentives serve as effective companions to a range of other forces, that together, are beginning
to reduce the release of hazardous pollutants: SARA Section 313 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI);
the rapidly increasing costs of waste management as treatment and disposal sites become scarcer
and more sophisticated in response to regulation; the liabilities associated with hazardous releases
in the environment under the federal and many state Superfund statutes; and the general
expansion in consumer awareness and consequent economic behavior toward industries with an
TM environmentaily friendly TM image. All of these incentives should be supported by governments
and the private sector.
Congress and state legislatures should improve the incentive for industry to take the lead
on this program by expanding reporting requirements under Section 313 of SARA (TRI) to
include the full range of chemicals that could potentially pose risks to the environment and
public health and to more manufacturing categories, whose activities pose similar risks. (There
is disagreement regarding expansion to nonmanufacturing categories.) Such an expansion should
be designed to increase the incentives for effective pollution prevention planning.
Water Quality 2000 recommends that a collaborative effort be made to establish national
guidelines that comprise a general list of components for facility-level pollution prevention plans.
These plans should be designed for demonstration of continuous improvement and allow for
facilities to revise voluntarily their manufacturing and other processes to reduce inputs of
hazardous chemicals and substitute less hazardous chemicals in internal processes to reduce
exposure and emissions of those process chemicals and residuals in every step of facility
operation and maintenance. As reductions in exposures and emissions are achieved, additional
percentage reductions will decrease over time, while continuous improvement in pollution
prevention would continue.
Mechanisms must be established to ensure that facilities complete pollution prevention plans
consistent with these guidelines. One mechanism could be using the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 to require the completion of pollution prevention plans consistent with the national
guidelines for those facilities covered by the annual TRI report under Section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
Facilities would make a summary of the resulting plans available to the public. The actions
taken as a result of plans need to be reviewed with the affected community and be made
available to employees and the public. The level of attainment of the goals described in the plans
should be presented to the community regularly to assess progress made under the programs.
47
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCUL.4 TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
health and the environment. Both individual corporations and industry associations must,
therefore, take an active role in demonstrating to the public and the legislatures that such a
voluntary program can be effective.
Even with the best efforts at pollution prevention planning, however, we will continue to
use products and materials that may cause harm to human health and the environment. Such
harm can be reduced through proper product stewardship. Product stewardship supplements but
does not replace pollution prevention.
Product stewardship is a system for using and managing products through all stages in their
life cycle in a manner that continuously improves protection of human health and the
environment. The process applies to both new and existing products. It begins with research and
development and continues through commercialization, disposal, and environmental fate.
Product stewardship is shared responsibility that covers all stages of a product’s life. This
includes full consideration of methods to increase protection of human health and the
environment in terms of: raw materials use, storage and transportation; manufacturing processes;
providing a safe and healthy workplace; packaging; product use and transportation; and
educating product users about safe and efficient use and disposal.
Decisions about Products
Water Quality 2000’s third recommendation recognizes that there are institutional
constraints on the ability of individual firms to make decisions based on potential harm to society
and the environment as a whole rather than the economic well-being of the firm, particularly
when faced with strong market competition.
The government should intervene by restricting or prohibiting the use, manufacture, or
generation of residuals of hazardous chemicals where sound scientific information indicates the
need for such actions. As a first step, it may be wise to conduct such intervention using existing
mechanisms, such as the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Federal Insecticides, Fungicides,
and Rodenticides Act. There clearly is disagreement, however, over the effectiveness of both
of these mechanisms and whether improved standards and procedures are needed for these
decisions.
Finally, and in support of the other recommendations, a national effort is needed to develop
and refine life cycle assessment for products, materials, feedstocks, and the like. Such analyses,
if conducted in scientifically valid manner, will enable businesses to identify opportunities for
improvements in the water quality area. Such analyses also are useful to identify potential areas
of improvement for air emissions and energy expenditures.
49
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE. CITE. OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
Individual and Collective Responsibility for Water Resources
Water Quality 2000’s Vision and Goals can only be realized if the American people as
individuals and collectively as members of the community adopt a heightened sense of
responsibility for protecting water resources. Much can be accomplished through individual and
collective responsibility for actions that affect water resources.
Unfortunately, however, experience has shown that purely voluntary action alone will not
always ensure that behavior is changed sufficiently. For example, many people and all levels of
businesses (from small farmers and retailers to agribusiness and major manufacturers) want to
alter their actions to protect the environment but lack the financial resources to do so. Some will
change their actions for altruistic reasons, while others require some incentive to do so. Others
would act to protect the environment but lack adequate understanding of how their activities
affect the environment and knowledge of how to change their behavior accordingly. Invariably,
some people and businesses will require more than incentives and education to take responsible
actions. The following types of actions will help ensure individual and collective responsibility
for protecting water resources:
Education . All levels of government, the media, and academic institutions can help to
educate individuals and businesses about how their actions may degrade water quality and aquatic
resources and what actions can be taken to reduce or eliminate those impacts. Government
agencies, environmental groups, and others have developed resource materials to educate
businesses arid the public, but much more is needed. School curricula at all levels should be
revised to educate the public about environmental issues and effects and, specifically, to teach
sound practices in business and everyday life that will help to protect the environment. All levels
of government should increase resources devoted to public education, both about general
environmental issues, and about specific practices that individuals and businesses can take to
protect the environment.
Consequently, we call on Congress to fully fund and expand (as recommended in Chapter
ifi of this report) environmental education programs at all levels: elementary schools, high
schools, vocational schools, colleges, professional organizations, government training programs,
public libraries, non-profit conservation organizations, farm cooperatives, and so on.
Incentives and Financial Assistance . Often individuals and businesses want to make
changes that would protect the environment but lack the financial resources to do so. For
example, a homeowner may understand that insulation will reduce energy use and accompanying
environmental impacts or that more efficient plumbing fixtures will save huge amounts of water.
These investments will save money over time, but the homeowner may lack the capital to
purchase and install materials now. Businesses may want to alter practices to reduce their use
of hazardous materials and waste generation, protecting themselves and their workers as well
as the environment, but require expensive plant changes to do so. Government can help to
encourage these practices by revising federal, state, and local tax laws to provide tax credits and
deductions for investments in environmental improvement. Small businesses can be helped
further by expanding and modifying small business loan and cost-sharing programs.
50
-------
RAFTDOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
Facilitation . Often individuais and businesses want to take actions to protect the
environment but cannot physically or financially do so alone. For example, individuals, farmers,
and small businesses may want to ensure that their relatively small quantities of hazardous waste
do not collectively pollute surface and ground water, but facilities are not available for proper
disposal at a reasonable cost. Government should fill this gap by working with the private sector
to assure adequate, accessible facilities for collection, storage, and disposal of these wastes.
Similarly, people and business may want to recycle their wastes, but municipal and regional
collection facilities require significant expansion to allow full use of this potential resource.
Others may want to make use of valuable recycled materials, such as clean biosolids from
sewage treatment, properly-treated sewage wastewater rich in nutrients, and compost from
municipally collected household yard waste, but to facilitate this use, government needs to
implement and enforce programs necessary to ensure that these materials are safe (and to give
the public adequate assurance that they are safe) and work with the private sector to provide or
coordinate the necessary infrastructure to transport these materials to the proper locations.
Regulation . While in a perfect world all individuals and businesses would take the proper
steps to protect the environment based only on the aforementioned three types of measures,
many individuals still will not conduct their business and personal activities in ways that
minimize impacts to the environment. For this reason, regulation of some activities is a
necessary part of governmental efforts to protect water quality and aquatic resources. Indeed,
often regulation “levels the playing field” between those who take appropriate actions on their
own and those who must be required to do so.
A Watershed Basis For Water Quality Planning and Management
Most natural events and economic activities (with, most notably, the exception of air
pollution) affect the quality of water resources principally within watershed boundaries —
delineations of the regional geography within which all precipitation collects in a common
waterbody such as a lake or river. As a result, it can be argued scientifically that watersheds
constitute the most sensible hydrologic unit within which actions should be taken to restore and
protect water quality. This approach provides the framework to evaluate a natural resource
problem using a natural systems approach. Watershed planning efforts to date strongly suggest
that individual watersheds are the most logical geographical units to use to identify holistic
cause-and-effect water quality relationships, link upstream uses to downstream effects, develop
reasonable water cleanup plans, target limited resources, and educate and involve the public.
This argument is even more compelling from an historical context. Much of the national
water quality effort over the past several decades has relied on standard technologies or
management approaches that could be expected to reduce pollution from point sources regardless
of their location. As Water Quality 2000’s interim report indicates, however, much of the
remaining water quality problems across the country are attributable to runoff from agricultural,
urban, and suburban lands.
In contrast to the problems posed by a manageable number of point sources, whose
discharges have been relatively predictable, the problems associated with runoff are far more
51
-------
DR.4FT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
complex. For example, because runoff problems are often related more to individual actions than
to single pollutant sources, there are as many different sources of runoff as there are land uses.
In addition, both the quality and quantity of runoff depends on local topography and soils, which
can change rapidly, and on rainfall, which is highly unpredictable. Under these conditions,
solutions based exclusively on a standard national approach seem unlikely to be successful.
Controls developed at the national and state levels must be combined with individually developed
strategies for unique river basins, watersheds, and collection basins or receiving waters,
including most of the nation’s estuaries. The watershed approach may be the only sensible way
to address point sources and runoff in an integrated fashion.
Moreover, promoting the implementation and funding of protection efforts within
watersheds motivates individual action and provides the public reasonable assurance that those
asked to pay for clean-up also will be able to enjoy its benefits. Citizens are usually more
interested and involved when they can identify with a nearby stream, lake, or watershed area.
Management institutions organized by watershed provide far better opportunity to resolve
intergovernmental or interjurisdictional conflicts through collaborative, consensus-based
techniques. Local incentive to participate in such processes should be enhanced to the extent that
participants can be assured that all are equal in the process and that results will benefit their
community.
Moreover, watersheds provide the flexibility to address water quality and water quantity
problems and their interaction in the different climatic settings found throughout the nation;
water quality-quantity problems in the arid West are far different from those in the Northeast.
Thus, watersheds allow for the development of total resource protection plans that are tailored
to the conditions in the area of interest.
Watersheds also may define the appropriate spatial boundaries for total environmental and
economic planning. Water is one of the keystones for all levels of biological organization as well
as all organized economic activity. Ultimately, all activities in or on the air, land, and water
can be measured in terms of their effects on water quality, water quantity, or aquatic resources.
It seems sensible, therefore, to evaluate the acceptability of environmental protection and
economic development activities on the basis of their effects on aquatic resources within the
watershed.
Watershed-based management allows for better accountability in protecting water resources.
In our interim report, Water Quality 2000 concluded that clean water programs have been less
effective than they could be because of a lack of baseline data and statistics related to progress
over time. In addition, monitoring efforts have historically focused on water chemistry instead
of other indicators, such as physical habitat, flow, and biology. The watershed provides a logical
basis for integrated, coordinated monitoring. Data can then be used as a management tool to
manage for environmental results by establishing priorities and goals within the watershed,
evaluate the success of protection efforts, and focus limited resources on the most effective
approaches and actions.
52
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULA TE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
USGS Hydrologic Units provide consistently derived waterbody segments within which
watershed-based measures can be implemented. There are four levels of hydrologic units (see
Exhibit B): the largest, regions, encompass the drainage areas of major river systems. The
regions are divided into subregions, accounting units, and cataloging units. This hierarchy
provides the flexibility to address water quality problems at appropriate scales.
Surface hydrologic units may be used to address groundwater issues for some types of
aquifers, but not for others. In particular, shallow, unconfined aquifers usually can be managed
within surface water boundaries because they are highly connected to surface waters. Deeper,
confined aquifers generally cannot be protected effectively within surface water boundaries
because these aquifers transgress such boundaries and are not well connected to surface water.
Groundwater protection is an integral part of holistic watershed planning. Recognizing that
aquifers do not always follow watershed boundaries, watershed institutions should create ways
to plan for protection of groundwater resources that cross watershed boundaries.
In some watersheds, planning and management activities may be more effective in attaining
water quality goods if they are organized by ecological regions (sub-watersheds). This is because
the natural differences in climate, geology, soil, land form, and vegetation may not conform
strictly to hydrologic regions. These features can determine the ecological character of surface
water and near-surface groundwater.
Under EPA and state leadership, amenUments to the 1972 Clean Water Act have resulted
in several useful models of watershed planning, but little progress has been made in the area of
watershed manageme&° States, too, are recognizing the need to manage their natural
resources on an increasingly broader scale. Today, some 36 states support regional or river-basin
approaches to natural resources management. 11 Typically these efforts are designed as
consensus-based policy making or planning processes where the states facilitate the creation and
implementation of integrated land use, development, and conservation goals in cooperation with
local public and private interests. Yet, most states would probably agree that their administrative
and political structures may have to change to better support comprehensive natural resources
management.
Such change cannot be successful without a parallel reevaluation of federal water quality,
natural resources, and related statutes as well as the programs they engender. The 1972 Clean
Water Act called for the development of areawide waste treatment plans (Section 208). These
regional plans were expected to coordinate all surface and ground water quality initiatives under
a management strategy to control or treat industrial and municipal point sources, agricultural and
urban runoff, silviculture, construction, mining, saltwater intrusion, runoff from solid waste
sites, and accumulated sources of pollution such as deposits in harbors. 12
53
-------
21 WATER-RESOURCES REGIONS
EXHIBIT B
. _, — - —
ffi• U $
$ia..
-
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
Despite a relatively comprehensive design and the expenditure of millions of dollars in
federal funds, the Section 208 planning process failed to attain its goals. Over time, regulators
and engineers were able to achieve significant improvements in some bodies of water by
controlling point sources, but planners were unsuccessful in convincing decision makers to
address the full range of sources. This failure is attributable to program delays, resulting, in
part, from a lack of EPA guidance that put the planning process out of synchronization with the
construction of facilities; federal funding priorities that favored installation of point source
controls in advance of planning; and state and local government resistance to using the 208
process for land use control. Yet, a 1976 report prepared for the National Commission on Water
Quality stated that:
“Any effective strategy for control of nonpoint sources within the framework of the
Act can only be a product of the areawide planning process.”’ 3
Areawide water quality management may have been ahead of its time in 1972. Today, after
20 years of experience with narrowly targeted authorities, technology-forcing regulations, and
patchwork programs, we believe the nation is ready to embrace a more holistic approach. The
challenge this time will be to move beyond planning and actually implement integrated,
watershed-based protection of water resources.
Recommendations 14
Congress should create a new national program of watershed planning and management,
including a mandate for implementation of activities as a condition of participating in planning.
Congress should impose no particular management form on the states and should build upon
existing watershed mechanisms. However, planning and management institutions should be
required for all 21 of the major riverine watersheds in the United States. Where watersheds fall
entirely within state boundaries, intrastate management institutions may be appropnate. Where
water resource systems extend beyond state boundaries, Congress should encourage, authorize,
and approve the creation of interstate regional mechanisms, including joint federal-interstate
compacts, as requested by the states, to plan and manage water resources. New planning and
management institutions should be created with care — on the basis of water quality priorities
and expressions of local interest and commitment.
These new public jurisdictions must be empowered to undertake the range of functions
necessary to achieve coordinated use and conservation of water resources. Intrastate and
interstate water resources coordination institutions should be:
(1) established pursuant to negotiations among participating parties,
(2) independent, within the context of the broader hierarchy of watersheds,
(3) attentive to the concerns of all affected levels of government and public and private
interests,
55
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE. OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
(4) financed, to the extent possible, by parties to the agreement,
(5) empowered to take effective action within the scope of responsibility agreed to, and
(6) directed by parties of the agreement.
Watershed planning and management institutions should be nested, reflecting the multiple
orders of progressively larger watersheds. Institutions created to manage the smallest watersheds
(corresponding to one of the 2,150 USGS cataloguing units) should participate in planning and
managing the larger watersheds to which they belong and targeting priority areas within
watersheds for action. For example, in areas experiencing nitrate contamination from feedlot
runoff, states should work with agricultural interests and other specialists from USDA or EPA,
as appropriate, within the appropriate cataloguing unit to identify priority sources and take steps
to prevent future runoff problems by implementing farm-level pollution prevention plans. Such
an action should be undertaken even for small agricultural operations (below the 1,000 unit
cutoff for permitting) in areas experiencing water quality degradation.
Such a nested hierarchy could be organized at the top with an umbrella planning institution
representing each of the 21 major riverine watersheds, the largest of the watershed divisions in
the United States.
Under such a hierarchy, it may be logical to expect that relatively more planning and less
management will occur at the largest watershed level. To the extent that federal-interstate
jurisdictions are created, for example, they may be well suited to setting performance goals,
coordinating the activities of signatory states and their jurisdictions, handling disputes, and
raising revenues for implementation. More localized watersheds are probably better suited to
sponsor hands-on resource protection, conservation, and use activities, consistent with local goals
and preferences. Local management plans must reflect the unique characteristics of the
watershed, including those that affect the hydrologic cycle (precipitation, runoff, groundwater
percolation, and evapo-transpiration), topography, soils, land use, socioeconomics, and
institutions. At the same time, however, plans must take a systems perspective by developing
a comprehensive water resources management program that includes water supply, water quality,
water conservation, flood protection, land use, and protection of living resources and their
habitats.
Watershed management efforts, even at the largest scale, may have to turn to the federal
government for activities in which there is a clear advantage to a federal role. Obvious examples
include setting national water quality criteria and effluent guidelines as well as drinking water
standards. The federal government alone can coordinate the federal agencies to improve
collection and dissemination of water resources data. Another is the research and development
of effective tools for watershed planning — ie. risk assessment or methods for valuation of
environmental resources. Federal assistance in funding may also be warranted).
All of the recommendations on pollution prevention planning and implementation presented
earlier in this chapter can and should be implemented locally, under a watershed planning and
56
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CIRCULATE, CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
management framework. Other specific actions, including those presented next, also are well
suited to a watershed approach.’ 5
Water Ouplitv-based PermittinQ for Point Sources . Despite the consensus that runoff
is the source of many of the nation’s remaining water quality problems, a significant number of
waterbodies do not meet water quality standards because of problematic point source discharges.
Under such conditions, water quality-based permitting should be implemented at the watershed
level. Refocusing national attention on the need to plan for and manage our water resources
within watershed boundaries will help broaden the use of existing authorities to undertake water
quality-based permitting and sharpen the need for new authorities and analytical tools. For
example, the Clean Water Act currently provides delegated states and EPA regions, where
appropriate, ample authority to implement water quality-based permitting. Many critics of the
current program have found it to be underimplemented, however. Watershed-based planning will
facilitate water quality-based permitting and balance the strategy of “ratcheting down” on point
sources with strategies of preventing polluted runoff from rural, urban, and suburban lands.
Coordinate Land-Use Planning with Watershed Goals . Water resource goals cannot be
attained without adequate land use planning. Under a hierarchical watershed planning and
management system, government must manage land use and transportation systems as one way
to attain water resources performance goals. This will entail several activities: (I) planners,
private developers, local water districts and boards, transportation agencies, citizen
representatives, and owners/operators of water resources management structures must participate
in watershed planning and management; (2) watershed management institutions, in turn, must
educate these participants on watershed goals and on the links between land use and
transportation actions and decisions and the quality of water resources; (3) these participants
must carry the message to their constituencies, working toward locally acceptable land use and
transportation decisions that protect aquatic ecosystems; and (4) all participants must contribute
to improved long-term monitoring and compliance strategies.
Manage Water Delivery Systems within Watershed Boundaries . Under guidance to be
developed by the U.S. EPA, with input from the entire drinking water community, states should
take the principal role in working through watershed management institutions to shift away from
water delivery according to political boundaries and toward more efficient, watershed-based
delivery systems. EPA’s guidance must address removal of legislative barriers that set incorrect
boundaries and prevent management efficiencies on both water quality and quantity issues. The
guidance should lay the foundation for states to consolidate proper management (including
logistics, administration, and technical support) of water systems (including private wells)
through a mix of enforcement and incentives, while encouraging privatization and other options
as an answer to financial problems. Guidance should promote adequate education so that the
public will support required changes and any related costs. This document should not direct any
state action; however, it should strongly suggest action within a set schedule, while using
examples of success and offering some incentives for action. EPA and the states may wish to
review the recent experience of the state of Washington in this area as a model for the nation.
With the lessons learned in the Washington case, it is hoped that full implementation can be
accomplished within 10 to 15 years. This is a long-term solution with the guidance document
57
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT — DO NOT CIRCULATE. CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23. 1992
being a realistic first step. At various points in the time schedule, progress must be evaluated
and adjustments made as conditions warrant.
Mana2e the Hydrologic Reeirne within Watersheds to Support Habitat and Protect
Potable Water Sources . Watershed managers must consider the extent to which both high and
low flow conditions can be managed to alleviate ecosystems stresses and support habitat. Where
low flow augmentation is sensible, for example, watershed management institutions should adopt
augmentation policies, educate water users as to their importance, and oversee their
implementation. Regions in which low flow augmentation may make sense generally are
characterized by multipurpose reservoirs and structures located either on-stream or off-stream
(‘umped-storage reservoirs). Incorporation and/or use of water storage capacity within reservoirs
for low flow augmentation could significantly reduce stresses on aquatic ecosystems and ensure
sufficient supplies for human consumption. Under extreme low flow conditions, relatively small
increments in flow volume through flow augmentation can have major impacts on both physical
and chemical characteristics of streams, benefiting aquatic ecosystems.
Manaae RanEe and Pasture Lands within Watershed Boundaries In watersheds where
water quality standards are violated or at risk of being violated, because of rangeland runoff or
other riparian degradation from grazing, state lead water quality agencies in coordination with
federal agencies, ranchers, and others should oversee the planning and implementation of
technology-based management measures that serve the goals of the entire watershed.
Implementation should occur at the sub-watershed level, at a spatial scale as small as necessary
to allow for targeting by the severity of the problem. Implementation should be iterative and
progressively more stringent until watershed requirements are met. Monitoring should be carried
out by states and local units of government at an intensity sufficient to identify water quality and
aquatic system problems. This information should enable resource management planners in
assisting land owners and managers to plan and apply economically achievable levels of land
treatment and management to meet water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat quality needs.
Riparian systems have the concluding impact on water moving through the watershed. They
collect, filter, cool, store, slow, and process runoff in important ways. When properly
functioning, riparian systems exert a strong influence on stream flow, water quality, and the
aquatic community. Riparian systems that have proper vegetative cover (ecological status) and
structure exert the most positive impacts. Therefore, managing riparian systems must be a
priority.
Manaae Developed Urban Areas Using the Watershed Approach . The first two
priorities in any urban runoff program (including CSO abatement) should be: (1) prevention of
the storm flows that cause habitat destruction from extreme hydrologic conditions and (2)
prevention of the influx of chemical pollutants into stormwater that cause urban water
pollution.’ 6 Storm flow abatement can be accomplished by maximizing upland, capture of runoff
and, wherever possible, maximizing the infiltration of this runoff into the ground to minimize
the need to carry and treat surface flows. Urban watershed managers should evaluate a wide
range of activities, including: (1) comprehensive inventories of the number, location, and nature
of discharge of CSO and storm sewer outfall points; (2) prevention and control programs for
runoff and CSOs on a watershed-wide, multi-government cooperative basis; (3) local citizen
58
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT— DO NOT CIRCULATE. CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23, 1992
involvement to help frame and fund formal cooperative programs between local and state
agencies and citizen water quality activists; and (4) geographic information systems to pinpoint
problem areas — the concentrations of uncontrolled impervious surfaces — that contribute the
most runoff to the sewer systems.
Historically, national water resources policies have established concepts of state primacy,
which have further been reinforced by U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Various forms of the
appropriations doctrine of Water Law are in place in the 17 western states and have also been
reinforced by state water courts. Hence, it will be important for a new national water policy
based on watershed level planning and management to take into consideration state water laws
and, where appropriate, address the need for state appropriation doctrine to maintain natural in-
stream flows. Interstate and interbasin water law, including groundwater law, is perhaps more
properly administered by federally enforced compacts.
SUMMARY
This chapter has called for a new agenda in national water policy. The foundation for our
new agenda is perhaps best expressed as Water Quality 2000’s goal: to develop and implement
an integrated policy for the nation to protect and enhance water quality that supports society
living in harmony with healthy natural systems.
The first step toward meeting this goal is to articulate holistic water policies to guide our
activities in the 21st century. Water Quality 2000 has suggested three strategies for
consideration: pollution prevention, individual and collective responsibility for water resources,
and watershed planning and management. Detailed recommendations designed to integrate these
strategies with related societal policies are presented in Chapter III.
Chapter ifi presents 85 detailed recommendations — the tools of change — that deal with
education, incentives, finance, management, regulation, and training. Each is tied intimately to
this chapter’s broader call for a new agenda for national water policy.
ENDNOTES
1. Much of the discussion in this box is adapted from Theodore M. Schad, “Past, Present,
and Future of Water Resources Management in the United States,” which appeared in
Water Management in the 21st Cemuiy, American Water Resources Association
(September 1989).
2. See, for example, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Investments: The
Cost of A Clean Environment, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, EPA-230- 12-90-
084 (December 1990).
59
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT C 1RCULA TE, CITE. OR QUOTE - APRIL 23. 1992
3. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, P.L. 101-508 (November 5, 1990).
4. National Association of State Foresters, Report of Survey Results -- Implementation of
Silvicultural Nonpoins Source Programs in the United Stases. Compiled by Don Essig,
Forestry Division, Montana Department of State Lands, Helena, MT (February 1991).
5. U.s. Office of Technology Assessment, Improving Awomobile Fuel Economy: New
Standards, New Approaches (October 1991).
6. Recycling aluminum, for example, reduces air pollutants by 95 percent compared to
producing virgin aluminum. Producing glass from scrap glass as opposed to raw materials
reduces air emissions by 20 percent and water pollutants by 50 percent.
7. Water Quality 2000 Aquatic Ecosystems Challenge Group, Recommendations from the
Citizen Action Subgroup (August 1991). (Complete citation will be included in final
report.)
8. For more information, see America’s Energy Choices: Investing in a Strong Economy and
a Clean Environment, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA (1991).
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxic Release Inventories (1987, 1989).
10. The basinwide, geographically focused Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes initiatives are
examples of multiple levels of government and the private sector working together to plan
and manage multi-disciplinary water quality improvement initiatives. The Clean Lakes
Program, Section 314, has demonstrated how federal, state, and local partnerships can
target critical problem sources and effect solutions for over 100 lake watersheds. The
National Estuary Program, administered under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act, also
brings together all interests in water resources management within designated estuaries of
national significance. To date, whole estuary planning andlor implementation efforts have
been started for 17 estuary or coastal systems.
11. South Carolina Water Resources Commission, State River Basin Management Approaches
and Consensus Building Techniques, prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service (February 1991).
12. Senate Committee on Public Works, “A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972,” 93rd Congress, 1st Session, Volume 1 (1975).
13. National Commission on Water Quality, “Staff Report to the National Commission on
Water Quality,” Washington, DC (1976).
14. In preparing this section, Water Quality 2000 relied heavily on a series of recent reports
on water resources planning and management. For a fuller discussion of the findings of
these reports, see “Watershed Planning and Management,” a background paper by Apogee
Research, Inc., for the Steering Committee of Water Quality 2000 (November 25, 1991).
60
-------
DRAFT DOCUMENT— Do NOT CIRCULATE. CITE, OR QUOTE - APRIL 23. 1992
15. These are just a few of the types of actions that should be implemented within watersheds.
Readers are referred to Chapter HI for many other recommendations that are well suited
to a watershed approach.
16. All urban watershed managers may wish to consult the 1990 Puge: Sound Stormwaer
Management Manual, which contains many category-by-category pollution prevention
concepts and practices for different industries, businesses, and urban land uses.
61
-------
The
Nature
conseilIancy FACTS
1815 North Lynn Street Contact: Communications Department
Arlington, Virginia 22209 (703) 841-4897
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1992
The Natuis Conservancy preserves plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life
on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Operating in the United States for the past
forty years, the Conservancy also has Latin American, Caribbean, and Pacific Programs that have helped
protect millions of acres outside the United States. The Conservancy owns and manages more than 1,300
preserves throughout the U.S., the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world.
The Conservancy wotics by;
* Identifying lands that shelter the best examples of natural communities and
species; determining what is truly rare and where It exists.
* Protecting habitats and natural systems through acquisition by gift or purchase;
assisting government and other conservation organizations in their land
preservation efforts.
* Managing more than 1,300 preserves using staff and volunteer land stewards;
encouraging compatible use of the sanctuaries by researchers, students, and the
public.
IRGANIZATION
dhe Nature Conservancy was incorporated In 1951 for scientific and educational purposes. It is a nonprofit,
tax exempt corporation under section 501 (c)3 of the internal Revenue Code and is a publicly supported
organization as defined in Sections 170(b)(1)(vi) and 509(a). The Conservancy’s activities are made possible
through individual and corporate contributions, foundation grants, membership dues, and recovery of
expenses.
The Conservancy has an open membership policy and an elected board of governors. In addition to its
volunteers, the Conservancy employs over 1,000 professional staff members with backgrounds ranging from
systems ecology, biology, and forestry to real estate, business, and law.
The Conservancy’s headquarters are located in metropolitan Washington, D.C., also headquarters to the
International Program office. Professionally staffed offices are located In all 50 states.
The Nature Conservancy has expanded its programs to encompass areas outside the United States. The
Pacific program, headquartered in Hawaii, is working to identify and protect threatened areas in Indonesia,
Melanesia, and Micronesia. In Latin America, the Conservancy has joined forces with over 30 organIzations
covering 17 countries to provide infrastructure, community development, professional training and long-term
funding for legally protected but underfunded areas throughout the continent.
IDENI1FICA11ON
State Natural Heritage Inventory Programs, usually administered by a state agency, are ongoing inventories
that identify rare natural elements and their locations within a particular state. Researchers use Inventory
techniques and assessment methods developed by The Nature Conservancy. The scientific information
gathered by the inventory indicates the relative rarity of plant and animal species, aquatic and plant
communities, and other significant ecological features. The systematic inventory process also indicates which
natural elements are currently protected and which are not. Consequently, the data can be useful in guiding
development siting decisions, In resource planning, and in many other conservation Initiatives. In Latin
\merica, these inventory programs are called Conservation Data Centers.
Recycled Paper
-------
PROTECTION
A project is undertaken based on:
* natural heritage program Inventory that Identifies a specific site sheltering
critically threatened plant or animal species/communities,
* or an acquisition strategy designed to enlarge an existing sanctuary according to
priorities Indicated by the heritage program.
The project is first reviewed by the Conservancy’s senior management. II It clearly supports the Conservancy’s
mission, a purchase option is negotiated. Upon approval, money for purchase is made available from the
Conservancy’s revolving Land Preservation Fund. The state chapter or special committee then raises funds to
repay the Conservancy so that the money can be reinvested In other protection projects.
In addition, the Conservancy employs a host of other techniques, Including conservation easements and
voluntary landowner agreements. The Conservancy also works with a variety of public and private agencies
and organizations to protect critically endangered land3.
STEWARDSHIP
The Conservancy’s Stewardship staff and volunteers maintain more than 1,300 preserves and employ
techniques like prescribed burnings, reforestation, fencing and other duties that both maintain the preserves
and encourage the growth of endangered plants and animals that live there. These preserves range in size
from less than one acre to more than 324,000 acres. Actual management Is carried out by the volunteer
committees and professional staff after a long term management plan has Identified stewardship needs. Most
Conservancy preserves are open for educational uses and recreation such as hiking, nature study, bird
watching and photography.
STATiSTiCS:
ACRES PROTECTED IN ThE U.S. SINCE 1953 : 62 MIllion
ACRES PROTECTED OUTSIDE ThE U.S.
WITH INC ASSISTANCE. 20 MIllion
ACRES MANAGED : 1,300,000
MEMBERSHIP : 645,000
CORPORATE ASSOCIATES : 678
PRESERVES UNDER CONSERVANCY MANAGEMENT : 1,300
(each preserve may be composed of a
number of land conservation projects
owned In fee or protected by
conservation easements)
NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY PROGRAMS 82
AND CONSERVATiON DATA CENTERS :
-------
The
Nature
conservano FACTS
1815 North Lynn Street Contact: Communications Department
Arlington, Virginia 22209 Stewardship (703) 841-4897
The Nature Conservancyworks to save rare species by protecting the wild lands they need to live
As owner of the largest private nature preserve system in the world, the Conservancy is responsible for
the long-term management of over 1,200,000 acres in more than 1,600 preserves. Stewardship of the
land safeguards the species and natural communities for which these conservation areas have been
established.
Stewardship actually begins prior to any land purchase. A team of ecologists, biologist, zoologists
and professional land stewards evaluate the land, determing whether or not satisfactory protection of
species can be established within the preserve boundries. If so, the land is set aside and a compre-
hensive stewardship plan is developed which specifies the best land protection strategy. Depending on
the individual preserve, customized stewardship activities may include some or all of the following land
protection techniques:
• Biological Monitonng -- An ongoing inventory of life on the preserve is taken by
a scientific work force. This biological information provides a cummulative
database from which scientists can study the status of a species, as well as generate
a method to extend the community.
• Prescribed Burning -- Preserves which require fire to facilitate life of the ecosystem
are periodically burned. Specially trained fire management teams study the weather
and fuel conditions and conduct extensive field-tested research. The result is safe
and effective burning that achieves specific aims, such as removal of old vegetation
and non-native species.
• Restoration -- In order to restore some preserves to their original state, native
trees are planted by the stewardship teams. Once the trees have regained a hold in
the ecosystem, wildlife that depends on the trees can return, restoring the entire
ecosystem to its original state.
• Removal of non-native species -- Feral plant species can invade a natural area and
choke the native plant life. The stewardship program monitors non-native species and
removes any that are dangerous to the ecological balance of the preserve.
Stewardship involves many duties that both maintain the preserve and encourage the growth of
the endangered plants and animals which live there. Volunteers play a key role in the success of any
stewardship plan. Their enthusiasm and manpower are an invaluable resources which assist the land
stewards in all aspects of land management, from fence-building to bird and fish monitoring.
The Stewardship Program is funded by the Conservancy’s state field offices as well as the national
headquarters. Almost all of Conservancy preserves are open to the public, though it is a good idea to
contact the appropriate state office to find out about any regulations before visiting a preserve.
For further information, contact the Stewardship Department at (703) 841-5346.
Recycled Paper
-------
The
Nature
conservancy FACTS
1815 North Lynn Street çQ t ct: Communications Department
Arlington, Virginia 22209 NATURAL HERITAGE PROGkCAM & (703) 841-4897
CONSERVATION DATA CENTER NETWORK
Natural Heritage Programs (NHPs) and Conservation Data Centers
(CDCs) are continually updated, computer assisted inventories of
the biological and ecological features and biodiversity
preservation of the country or region in which they are located.
These data centers are designed to assist in conservation
planning, natural resource management, environmental impact
assessment and planning for sustainable development.
The Network: Where are The NBPs and CDCS
There are now 82 data centers operating in the western hemisphere
including all 50 U.S. states (most are called Natural Heritage
Programs), several U.S. Bioreserves and National Parks, Puerto
Rico, two Canadian provinces, and 13 countries in Latin America
(CDCs) and the Caribbean. Regional centers provide
administrative and technical support to the individual programs.
Each data center is established within a local institution, most
frequently as part of a government agency responsible for natural
resource management and protection. While individual centers are
under local control and are staffed by local scientists and
conservationists, they also operate within a network. Tasks that
only need be done once for all the CDCs and Heritage Programs,
are apportioned to one unit with the results shared throughout
the network.
Methodology: How the 11BPS and CDCS Work
Each data center uses the Biological and Conservation Data System
as the basis for its operation, a system developed and refined by
The Nature Conservancy over the past 15 years. The information
is managed in more than 30 interrelated computer files, supported
by extensive map and manual files, and a library. A trained
staff of biologists, natural resource specialists and data
managers interprets the data for use in local conservation and
development planning, natural resource management and
environmental impact assessment.
Information assembled and managed by data centers focuses on:
ecosystems and species, their biology, habitats, locations,
conservation status and management needs; managed areas such as
National Parks, Forest Reserves, and watersheds; and on data
sources.
Each center compiles information from existing sources such as
scientific literature, knowledgeable people, and museum
collections. The local staff also directs and conducts field
Recycled Paper
-------
inventories of species and natural communities of special
concern, or may be contracted for biological assessments of
specific sites. Each study and report benefits from earlier work
in the same area and, through the network, related information
gathered at other times and places multiplies the local effort.
Central network databases are supported through cooperative
agreements with academic and scientific institutions.
The Nature Conservancy’s Role
The Nature Conservancy is involved in the establishment and
operation of the CDCs by providing technical, scientific and
administrative support and training. The Conservancy also makes
available the computer technology, data inventory and management
methodology, and procedure manuals used by CDCs and Natural
Heritage Programs. The methodology constantly undergoes
improvements as part of the partnership between the data centers
and The Nature Conservancy. These continual advancements ensure
that the entire network remains responsive to the needs of the
conservation and development communities.
All told, there are over 300 biologists and computer technicians
dedicated to the combined effort, with several hundred others
working part-time on biological inventories and research. The
Nature Conservancy is the administrative center of this network,
promoting communications and the exchange of data, solutions and
expertise throughout the network.
Applications: How NHPS and CDCS Are Used
Conservation Planning: The data center’s integrated biological
and land—use information is used to identify critical areas in
need of protection, and to establish conservation priorities on a
regional, national and global basis.
Development Planning: To help facilitate design and
implementation of ecologically sound development projects, data
centers provide biological and ecological information to
multilateral development banks, bilateral development agencies,
corporations both multi-national and local, as well as in-country
governmental agencies.
Park and Protected Area Management: Wise stewardship of natural
areas requires detailed knowledge of sensitive and endangered
biological features. Information maintained by Heritage Programs
and CDCs on parks, forest reserves, and wild areas, and the
management requirements of their biological elements, is used to
improve management practices.
Research and education: Results from each center’s inventory
work guides new basic applied scientific research. The
biological databases represent an important resource for long-
term environmental monitoring.
For more information contact the Science Division (703) 841-4888.
May 1991
-------
NATURE CONSERVANCY BACKGROUNDER FOR EPA/KAREN FISHLER
PUBLICATIONS DEPT. 703-247-3749/4—10—92
While many environmental groups take an adversarial approach,
especially to government, in their quest for conservation
results, The Nature Conservancy, an international nonprofit based
in Arlington, Virginia, looks for partners in its efforts to
preserve biodiversity.
The group has worked with numerous federal agencies, as well
as countless other public and private partners, to identify and
preserve natural areas needing protection. Federal partners with
which the Conservancy has accomplished conservation goals include
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Defense,
the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Forest Service.
The Conservancy’s mission is to preserve plants, animals and
natural communities that represent life’s diversity by preserving
the lands and water they need to survive. In the decades since
its founding in 1951, the Conservancy and its members, who now
number approximately 640,000, have been responsible for the
protection of more than 6.2 million acres in 50 states and
Canada. It has helped like-minded nongovernmental partner
organizations to preserve millions of additional acres in Latin
America and the Caribbean.
Over the years, the Conservancy has built a reputation as a
quiet force in conservation, often purchasing land in order to
-------
preserve rare and endangered species. Besides fee acquisition,
the Conservancy uses conservation easements and voluntary
landowner agreements to ensure habitat protection. Some
Conservancy—acquired areas are transferred for management to
other conservation groups, both public and private. But the
Conservancy owns more than 1,300 preserves —- the largest private
system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Stewardship staff and
volunteers who maintain the preserves employ techniques like
prescribed burnings, reforestation and fencing to protect, and
encourage the growth of, endangered plants and animals.
Science-based since its inception, the Conservancy developed
the methodology now used by Natural Heritage Programs (NHPs) and
Conservation Data Centers (CDCs) -— a network of continually
updated, computer-assisted inventories of the biological and
ecological features of the country or region in which they are
located. There are now 82 data centers operating in the Western
hemisphere, including one in each of the 50 states, where they
are usually run by state governments (most are called NHPs). The
other 32 are located in U.S. Bioreserves, National Parks and
National Forests, Puerto Rico, Canadian provinces and 13 Latin
American and Caribbean countries (most of these are called CDCs).
The data center network helps the Conservancy’s planners
decide which areas most need help from the organization, and in
which order. The network also responds to more than 200,000
requests each year from governments, educational institutions and
industry for information that will help in development planning,
natural resource management and environmental impact assessment.
-------
In addition to its headquarters office, the organization has
eight regional offices and 60 state offices. Over the last 18
years, the group has developed a strong program in Latin America
and the Caribbean, working with partners in 17 countries.
Reflecting an increasingly global perspective, the Conservancy
last year also established a program in the Pacific.
Building on its accomplishments through direct action, the
Conservancy has recently begun placing more emphasis on the need
to work with an even greater range of partners, in order to
protect ecosystems as well as individual species and communities
-- a goal that cannot be accomplished by the Conservancy alone.
The organization has called for a conservation approach that will
include both people and nature, and last year launched an
initiative it calls “Last Great Places.” Large—scale bioreserve
projects —- an initial dozen were introduced last year, with more
than 60 additional sites to come —— are serving as models for the
Conservancy’s new conservation vision. The projects, which
consist of still-intact natural systems that are under threat,
typically include a core natural area that should be fully
protected, surrounded by a buffer zone where appropriate
sustainable development can be encouraged. Government agencies,
private citizens’ groups, responsible businesses, educational
institutions and other conservation groups are among the many
partners with whom the Conservancy is working on Last Great
Places projects.
The Conservancy is already benefitting from EPA water
quality programs -- in wetland and estuary protection planning,
-------
for example, as well as in nonpoint source control -- that
conserve habitat and protect biological diversity. The
organization is very interested in expanding its relationships
and joint ventures with EPA (in most cases this will be in
cooperation with the conservation and environmental protection
agencies of the states). To this end, Conservancy field office
staff expect to meet and work more closely with EPA regional
office people.
A special opportunity is presented by the Office of Water’s
innovative watershed protection approach, a close match for the
Conservancy’s bioreserve planning approach. In many bioreserves,
such as the Cache River of southern Illinois and Big Darby Creek
in central Ohio, Conservancy planning is directed toward the
comprehensive protection of an entire watershed, its water
quality, its natural communities and diverse life. In these
cases, in fact, the ecological landscapes that the Conservancy is
working to protect have had the advantage of nonpoint source
grant funding awarded by EPA Region V to the states of Illinoise
and Ohio.
EPA staff wishing to locate Conservancy bioreserve projects
in their regions should feel free to call the organization’s
state offices for information; addresses and phone numbers [ are
available from News-Notes] [ appear on page X). The Nature
Conservancy t s headquarters office is located at 1815 North Lynn
Street, Arlington, Viginia 22209, (703) 841—5300. Overall
liaison with federal agencies is provided by John Humke at the
Arlington office, (703) 841—8761.
-------
The Bioreserve Concept
Robert E. Jenkins, Jr.
VP - Science
The Nature Conservancy
ABSTRACT
“Bioreserve” is a term used by The Nature Conservancy to refer to areas -- generally
large ones -- where conservation of biodiversity can be carried out at the landscape
scale. Bioreserves must be large enough to encompass examples of multiple
community types that naturally occur and dynamically interact within a region. Such
large areas will usually be complexes consisting of multiple real estate tracts under
various kinds of ownership but with coordinated management. This paper discusses
biodiversity itself, the need to conserve it, the necessity of nature reserves, the
Bioreserve concept, and the idea of comprehensive biodiversity conservation
planning. The theme of people nature is a key aspect of the Bioreserve idea --
of making land use patterns and resource management regimes that are compatible
with the needs of the biota, both on preserves and on the general landscape. For too
long we have behaved as if conservation could be achieved merely by separating
nature from people, with detrimental effects on both.
INTRODUCTION
As used by The Nature Conservancy, the term “Bioreserve” means
an area large enough to encompass intact examples, in an integrated
BloreBerve definition array, of as many as possible of the ecosystems typical of the geographic
region. Within a Bioreserve, the ecosystems must be managed in a way
that maintains the primary ecological processes and provides adequate
habitat for the survival of the native species that should live there.
Wherever possible the Conservancy will select areas that contain habitat
for clusters of endangered species and those that are difficult to conserve.
For many years the Conservancy has been establishing nature
preserves to protect endangered species populations, pristine ecosystem
Biohveraity d remnants, and other important biological and ecological features.
The Nature Coriiervaney Because many of these preserves are small and challenges from outside
their borders are increasing, we must take additional steps to ensure their
long-term capability to sustain all of the targeted species and biotic
communities. To prevent a gradual loss of species from these preserves
-------
2
and the consequent disintegration of their communities, we must find
ways to enlarge theft effective size. In many or most instances, we must
also manage them intensively to replicate natural processes that may no
longer operate.
We propose to do this through landscape complexes of preserved
and multiuse lands that we call “Bioreserves.” The idea is to arrange for
land and resource uses on the non-preserve portions of the complex that
will minimally damage and 1 if possible, actually enhance the status of the
biota within the area The concept of such a multizoned reserve goes
back at least to 1892, when the Adirondack Park was established in New
Biornerve antecedents York. A similar idea was employed by the British in the 1940s on theft
“green line parks.” The New Jersey PInelands Reserve is another large-
scale application of the concept, and UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere
Program has encouraged the establishment of a worldwide network of
such reserve complexes, which it refers to as “Biosphere Reserves”
(UNESCO, 1974, 1984). Nature Conservancy properties form important
parts of several such UNESCO-designated complexes, and the
Conservancy’s Latin American “Parks in Peril” campaign is attempting to
enhance the conservation status of many others. Through its Bioreserve
initiative, the Conservancy will greatly increase the fraction of its total
efforts devoted to such large-scale projects.
Land within a Bioreserve’s ecological boundaries will not ordinarily
be under single ownership, and much of it will not be managed for strict
nature conservation purposes. However, the Conservancy will be
undertaking overall assessments of regional ecosystem processes to
identify critical threats and indicators of healthy function. Then it intends
Multiple ownerehip to use its traditional land-protection tools and work with all willing
complexes landowners to help them understand the relationship of their land
management to the whole and to develop management and development
plans that are compatible with the needs and limitations of the overall
system. This approach will not only extend the effective biological
habitat to larger land areas but will allow the local community to
participate in management and use of the reserves. It will be a special
challenge to understand the ecosystem processes well enough to prescribe
the correct management treatments. It may be an even bigger challenge
to find combinations of sustainable land uses on the multiuse lands that
are compatible with both human needs and those of the other biological
inhabitants.
The concept is an attractive one that promises to contribute
enormously to the conservation of biological diversity. For it to do so, a
great many complex biological, ecological, legal, financial, and managerial
systems must be successfully integrated. Over the next five to ten years
Scope of Bioreserve the Conservancy intends to apply this concept on a large scale --
initiative increasing the number of Bioreserve projects as rapidly as possible in
North America, Latin America, the Canbbean, and the Pacific. Internally
we intend to transform the organization in order to develop the skills and
expertise we will need for this multifaceted task.
-------
3
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
The Nature Conservancy was founded as a special committee of
Bio iver ty the Ecological Society of America in 1917 and was established as a
separate action-oriented organization in 1946 (Ecological Society of
America, 1921, 1926; The Nature Conservancy, 1981). Since its inception,
the organization has been completely devoted to conserving biological
diversity by establishing nature reserves. It has done this by identifying
and protecting land areas containing a wide variety of ecosystems to serve
as habitat for the greatest diversity of biota possible.
The destruction of natural landscapes, ecosystems, and species that
so concerned the Ecological Society in 1917 has continued and intensified
in spite of the helpful effects of the nature reserves. As nature’s estate
has shrunken away, a larger and larger fraction of the conservation
community has turned its attention from traditional interests and begun
to join us in focusing specifically on conserving biological diversity. By
now an extensive literature has been developed on biodiversity, and the
reasons for concern have become familiar (Jenkins, 1975; McAllister,
1991a; Norton, 1986, 1987; Oldfleld, 1984; Wilson, 1984). However, it is
worth reiterating some of the main points here.
Nature as a Storehouse of Renewable Natural Resources
Renewable natural resources are the basis of all human societies,
primitive and modern. In the classic hunter-gatherer economy, low
human population densities can maintain themselves in a rough
equilibrium with the productivity of their natural surroundings, hunting
game animals and gathering roots, berries, and other food plants for their
Applied u local needs. Higher population densities depend instead on farms,
biodiver tty ranches, and orchards as their sources of food, drink, and other biological
products, but all livestock and crop plants derive ultimately from the wild
biota. New breeds are developed, and old ones improved, through
continued exploration and experimentation that depend on the natural
landscape for its source materials.
Corn ( Zea mays) , for example, is one of the most widely cultivated
food plants in the world, having an economic value over $50 billion. First
domesticated by American Indians, corn’s wild relatives still exist in
Mexico, where one species in particular, the recently discovered Z&a
diploperennis (Iltis et al., 1979), provides novel genes conveying disease
resistance and other desirable characteristics to agricultural corn strains.
Yet, until Rafael Guzman., a Mexican botany student, discovered this
species, its only known stand, a mere 15 acres, had no particular
protection from logging, farming, and other diversity-reducing land uses
characteristic of the Mexican mountains. Conserving this diploid wild
corn was the key factor in establishing a 350,000-acre UNESCO
Biosphere Reserve maintaining this species and its many thousands of
ecological and evolutionary associates in their natural landscape setting.
-------
4
Clothing and shelter also depend heavily on renewable natural
resources, as does the production of paper, that still-essential component
of modern office life. Yet it is in pharmaceutical products that
biodiversity really stands out. Humans have consciously been fighting
parasites and diseases for only a few millennia, while other species have
been evolutionarily fighting each other nearly since time began, leading
to countless instances of metabolic substances produced by one organism
that inhibit, deter, or outright kill another organism.
Folk medicines throughout all the world’s cultures reflect
indigenous people’s knowledge of plants or plant extracts that appear to
combat specific maladies. Many such reports have a scientific basis; with
refinement, a purified plant extract can be produced as a drug with
known properties. The world’s most widely used drug began its
theraputic career when people noticed that chewing twigs of willow ( Salix )
would reduce pain. Dioscondes reports that a decoction of willow leaves
was used by the classical Greeks. Fractionated and tested by 19th-century
German chemists, willow yielded the chemical called salicin; its
manufactured counterpart, acetylsalicylic acid, is now known as aspirin.
The heart drug digitalis, from the foxglove ( Digitalis purpurea) , is another
instance of a folk remedy now integrated into modern medicine. Malaria-
fighting quinine from cinchona bark, ( Cinchona officinalis ) was brought
to Europe in the 1600s from South America, where the natives had
valued it for centuries.
Aspirin can be manufactured economically, because the chemical
Applied utes, continued substance involved is simple and easy to make, but most biologically
active plant products cannot be duplicated more cheaply by industry than
they can be grown or even harvested from managed wild populations.
Simpson and Conner-Ogorzaly (1986) report that 37 of the 100 most-
prescribed medicines in America contain active compounds such as
steroids or alkaloids derived from flowering plants or fungi.
Taxol, for example, has recently come into prominence as an
unusually promising anticancer drug. Its complex formula perhaps
evolved as a predator or parasite defense by the yew tree in the days of
the dinosaurs, and has not yet been duplicated in the laboratory. Of the
world’s several species of yew, the Pacific yew ( Taxus brevifolia )
apparently produces this substance in the greatest concentration. The
search is currently on to locate the most productive kinds of yew trees,
cultivate these, and begin a taxol-production industry. Until then.
demand for this new drug far exceeds the sustainable level of wild harvest
of this slow-growing and relatively scarce understory tree of the Pacific
Northwest.
Not only survival and sustenance depend on biological diversity,
but also much of the enjoyment we derive from house plants, gardens,
and landscaping. Plant breeders continually seek new materials, both as
native species and as hybrids and selections derived from them. The
genetic pedigrees of many of our cultivated orchids and azaleas, to name
-------
5
just two examples, reach into the natural landscapes of faraway places.
Insects and many other invertebrates — terrestrial, aquatic, and
marine — have also been evolving complex chemicals for many millions
of years, which may prove of immense pharmaceutical value (Myers,
1983). Poisonous fish may also provide new drugs (Segman, 1959).
The economic wealth of tropical biota is only now beginning to be
explored systematically, yet in some regions extinction is happening faster
than species can be studied even superficially, and far faster than they can
be categorized, described, and named. Landscape conservation is the key
to protecting the largest number of unknown species, not only for their
own sake, but for the future benefit of human society as well.
Nature’s Right To Exist
Most of us have a natural moral sense that tells us it is wrong to
drive other species to extinction just because we want to consume more
and more of the Earth’s resources until an absolute limit is reached. The
advance of civilization has caused most people and societies to recognize
progressively a moral obligation to accord increasing rights to other
Live and let live mdividuals, other sbcial groups, other societies, and other living entities.
Political pressures for humane treatment of animals, for example, are
growing rapidly. A number of legal scholars have recently argued that
much good would result from recognizing nature as having legal rights
such that “trees could have standing” under which lawsuits could be
brought in their defense (Stone, 1988).
Some of this extension of rights to others results from the fact that
decent behavior makes us feel good, whether from instinct or social
conditioning. Some of it is based on the sound expectation that if we deal
unfairly with others they will deal unfairly with us. There may also be a
simple concept of good management that says unrestrained competitIon
places dangerous strains on a system’s stability (see below).
Nature a&Essential to the Human Psyche
A written record of humankind’s affinity for nature’s beauty,
harmony, and tranquility goes back to Herodotus (5th centuxy B.C.) in the
Western tradition and at least as long in Far Eastern cultures. Nature
has been prevalent in the art and literature of all cultures for as long as
they have had art and literature. Many people have looked to the
PeychoIog ca value, wilderness for a sense of freedom. Outdoor recreation, from hunting and
fishing to picking wildflowers, has been a source of enjoyment throughout
recorded time and in recent years, so-called ecotourism has become one
of the fastest-growing sectors of the travel industry. It is sad to think that
this represents something of a scramble to visit the last wild places before
they are gone, but obviously, the phenomenon is fueled by the inherent
love that our species feels for nature (Wilson, 1984).
-------
6
Sensory deprivation experiments show that the human mind cannot
stand the monotony of being cut off from a stream of varied messages
about objects and events in the external environment. Almost any human
activity we find pleasurable depends in part on diversity, and nowhere is
this more convincingly demonstrated than in our response to nature. Few
people would go bird watching if there were only one or two species of
birds, and it is the rare and seldom-seen ones that are most sought after.
The loss of a rare species is always deeply felt, often even by non-
biologists who know little or nothing about them. It is instinctive.
Ecological Resilience and Ecosystem Services
Perhaps the best of all arguments for preserving biological diversity
is that we don’t know whether we can get along without it.
A decade ago James Lovelock made the first statement of what he
Biodiver ity d called the Gala hypothesis (Lovelock, 1979). This complex idea has some
ecotog ca1 integrity very debatable aspects, but it highlights at least one important premise
with which experts in many fields increasingly concur -- that the biological
inhabitants of this planet have profoundly modified the chemical and
physical attributes of the surface and near surface of the Earth through
their life processes. We have called the thin envelope around the surface
of the Earth and the lower atmosphere the “biosphere, ’ by which we
mean that this is the only place we know of where life exists or where the
conditions that make it possible can be found. Now we realize that not
only does life exist here, but it is life that has largely made the biosphere
the way it is.
Conversely, the biota have adapted through evolution to the
current environmental conditions, and very few extant biological species,
including human beings, could live under the conditions that prevailed on
the Earth’s surface before life proliferated. Every living thing is
dependent on other living things. We cannot be sure what will happen
if we disrupt biological processes beyond a certain point or to what
degree current planetary function might be dependent on the immense
biotic diversity that has evoLved over the last couple of billion years. Paul
Ehrlich has used an engineering analogy to illustrate this point (Ehrlich
and Ehrlich, 1981). Ehrlich says that if someone were in an airplane
waiting to take off and observed mechanics drilling rivets out of the wings
one after another, that person would begin to be more than a little
apprehensive about how many rivets could be removed before the plane
suffered structural failure. Extinguishing biological species from the
Earth is even worse in some respects, because we do not have even a
clear understanding of just what functions given species may be
performing. The potential for large consequences from the loss of quite
unprepossessing species seems high. Prudence would dictate that we not
allow biotic diversity to be reduced in any very marked way.
On a simpler level, the relationship between biological diversity
and the stability of individual ecosystems has been debated for many
years (e.g., Anonymous, 1969; Goodman, 1975; Hutchinson, 1959; May,
-------
7
1974; P1mm, 1984). For a long time the question was miscast in
conservation circles — it was implied that more biologically diverse
ecosystems should be more biologically stable than less diverse ecosystems
and more able to retain their original structure and composition under
disturbance. The facts seem to be that very diverse communities, such as
tropical rainforests, tend to contain many rare species with narrow and
specialized niches that disappear under even moderate disruptions
(though they can usually reinvade unless the disruption is severe or
prolonged). At the other end of the spectrum, very homogeneous
communities, such as crop monocultures, present innumerable empty
niches that can be rapidly invaded by aggressive species and thus become
more diverse under continuous disturbance. Unfortunately, disturbance
seems to favor widespread \veed” species (both animals and plants).
Thus, overall biodiversity is reduced as a few species replace many species
over a wide geographic range.
It seems apparent to many of us that it is more meaningful to ask
whether biologically diverse ecosystems are more ecologically stable in
terms like these:
Is a forest stand more likely to experience a much greater loss of
the overstory to a pest or pathogen if it is composed of a single
EcoIogica integrity, tree species than several species? (Monocultures of susceptible
continued species create conditions for unimpeded outbreaks of pests or
disease -- Franklin et aL, 1989.)
Is it likely that an ecosystem with many species, each of which is
exploiting a narrower niche by means of more precise adaptational
uses of a subpart of the resource base, will be less “leaky” -- in
terms of energy and material flows, soil and water relations,
biomass accumulation, and the like -. than an ecosystem with
fewer species? (0. Loucks, personal communication).
Are entire landscapes more ecologically stable if they contain
many species capable of successfully using the many microhabitats
created by spatial and temporal variations than if they contain
fewer species and fewer community associations?
The answers to these questions should show that biologically
diverse ecosystems are highly desirable and deserving of protection
against disturbances that are catastrophic or chronic and produce the
above effects.
HOW BIODIVERSITY IS ORGANIZED IN NATURE
For conservation purposes, biodiversity may be thought of as being
organized at three distinct hierarchical levels (McAllister, 1991; Office of
Technology Msessment, 1987; Reid and Miller, 1989; Salwasser, 1990),
as follows:
-------
8
1) Genetic diversity . At this level are included all the genes and
Biodiver ty organization genotypes found in all individual organisms, important to their own
adaptational existence and representing resource options for use
by people.
2) Taxonomic diversity (often referred to as species diversity) .
This level comprises the full array of kinds of plants, animals, and
microorganisms that exist in nature. The term “taxonomic
diversity” is preferred because it includes the idea that species
classified in different higher taxonomic groups, such as families
and orders, differ more from one another than species in the same
genus (McAllister, 1991); also, that infraspecific taxa like
subspecies, varieties, and interspecific hybrids also represent
differences that may be worthy of conservation attention.
3) Community (or ecosvstem diversity . Species live together and
interact in a great variety of combinations in nature; these
combinations differ from each other enough to be recognized as
distinct biotic community types including many kinds of forests,
grasslands, wetlands, and aquatic assemblages. When abiotic
habitat variables are included with the biotic communities, the
totality is referred to as “ecosystems” (Whittaker, 1975).
For some purposes, and especially relevant to the Bioreserve
concept, it is useful to recognize a fourth level of organization (Noss,
1986):
4) Landscape diversity . All landscapes display subtle or obvious
variations in landform, substrate, and disturbance history which
favor different community assemblages, so that the total landscape
is made up of a patchwork of different community types. Because
of broad differences in regional climatic regimes, the typical
community assemblages differ from one geographic region to
another (Emmanuel et al., 1985; Forman and Godron, 1986).
BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND CONSERVATION
Our heritage of biological diversity is being rapidly depleted by the
Extinction increasing demands human activities place on the environment. Although
species extinction has occurred in nature since life arose, it has generally
been compensated for by the evolution of new species. We can discern
in the fossil record several great extinction episodes, but most experts
believe that these really took place at a stately pace by human standards
(they only look rapid when compressed into rock strata laid down over
millions of years) and that the overall trend has been upward. We
believe, therefore, that at the time our ancestors began to walk upright,
there were probably at least as many species as ever existed in the Earth’s
history. Since humanity’s fateful rise, however, the trend for other species
has been ever downward. The human-caused extinction spasm that we
are currently experiencing appears to have begun in many places about
-------
9
10,000 years ago with the loss of the great Pleistocene megafauna, the
woolly mammoths and ground sloths and camel relatives, that we were
taught as schoolchildren to associate with the advance of the glaciers (it
really happened after their retreat) arid has been continuously picking up
speed. It is now taking place at a blinding rate.
Homo sapiens appears to have brought about the Pleistocene
extinctions directly by overhunting, and this has continued to recent times
(Martin and Kiem, 1984). Our colonial grandfathers killed off the
passenger pigeon, the Russian sealers got the Steller’s sea cow, and we
almost finished off the American buffalo in the same high fashion. Since
the advent of game laws and game management, direct taking has ceased
in some parts of the world to be a main cause of extinctions, although
unregulated taking of rare plants such as certain cacti continues to be a
problem in our own country. Ambient environmental threats, like acid
rain and thinning stratospheric ozone, will probably cause the extinction
of some especially vulnerable species like hchens on mountain tops, but
these forces may threaten humanity as much as they do most other
species, so that we may be more inclined not to let these threats become
extremely serious.
Meanwhile, the overwhelmingly greatest threat to the biota today
comes from direct habitat destruction. The destruction of tropical
Habitat de tructton rainforests for agriculture and grazing is much in the news, but other
regions and ecosystems are equally affected. Tropical dry forests and
grasslands are even more endangered than rainforests. Agriculture
continues to expand to more and more marginal lands almost everywhere
in the world. Absolute destruction of natural habitats is exacerbated by
fragmentation into remnant patches that are subject to severe edge effects
— that is, invasion of weedy species, drying effects on microclimates,
increased windthrow of exposed trees, etc. Many of the ecosystem
fra ments are just too small to support minimum viable populations of
various species inhabitants. This fragmentation of North and Latin
American habitats is now believed to be the major cause of rapidly
declining populations of our migrant birds (Terborgh, 1989).
Aquatic systems are especially vulnerable (Benke, 1990; Karr,
Waterehed, 1981; Master, 1990, 1991). Alien species and habitat degradation are
responsible for the increasing number of endangered fish and other
aquatic organisms. There are at least 167 North American desert fish
species that have been identified as endangered, vulnerable, rare, or of
indeterminate status. Forty-eight of these are listed as endangered
(Desert Fishes Council, 1985). In addition to direct destruction from
impoundment, drainage, channelization, water withdrawal, riprap, and the
like, they are subject to the run-off of toxic pollutants, silt, and excess
nutrients from disruptive forces exerted anywhere in their watersheds
(Borman and Likens, 1979). (To fight this, Bioreserves will often be
designed around critical watersheds.)
-------
10
Because habitat destruction is the main threat to biodiversity,
habitat protection is the most effective form of conservation action (see
section on nature reserves), but this can be (and must be) augmented by
protection against direct taking and by the off-site conservation efforts of
zoos, botanical gardens, and seed banks. “Ex situ” methods are often
expensive, require constant attention, and cannot reliably preserve
associated mutualistic species or the evolutionary potential in populations
in their natural habitats. Therefore, such methods should be used in
close conjunction with land conservation such as in the “integrated
conservation” programs promoted by the Center for Plant Conservation
(McMahan, 1990) in cooperation with land managers like the
Conservancy and the Federal agencies.
NATURE PRESERVES
A systematically developed network of nature preserves and
carefully managed multiple-use lands is our only real hope for
perpetuating the vast majority of our biodiversity heritage.
Con5ervancy nature
prelerve. Since the 1950s The Nature Conservancy has devoted its efforts to
establishing nature preserves, mainly through direct acquisition of land,
by itself or in cooperation with Federal and State land management
agencies. During this time we have carried out more than 11,000 land
protection transactions in which we acquired outright over 5,500,000
acres of land. Of these, the Conservancy still owns and manages more
than 1,200,000 acres at over 1,600 separate sites, the largest private nature
preserve system in the world. The remaining acres have been transferred
to other conservation agencies for their management. Mostly these have
been Federal and State government agencies, but some lands have gone
to other private conservation organizations.
To preserve the widest array of the “elements of biological
diversity,” the Conservancy has systematically identified and protected
lands containing a wide variety of habitat types and species. From the
lands identified, our priority has been to work on the rarest, the best, and
those that are most threatened. If we had not established these preserves,
the features and phenomena they contain would have been destroyed.
The complete system of existing preserves, including those established by
other agencies, constitutes, in our view, the most important biodiversity
conservation action taken to date.
Preserving as much diversity in as many places as possible with
limited resources has required that many of the preserves be small, often
barely containing the important features themselves, or sometimes only
part of them. Such small preserves must be thought of as stopgap
measures for many of the species and ecosystem remnants they contain,
sufficient to meet their immediate needs but, like lifeboats, not expected
to suffice as their entire future habitat.
-------
11
Effects of Small Preserve Size
Island biogeographic theory suggests that for a variety of reasons,
Preserves too ma1l small preserves, or small habitat patches within preserves, will gradually
lose some of the species they originally contained (Diamond, 1975;
Diamond and May 1976; Higgs, 1981; MacArthur and Wilson, 1967;
Shafer, 1990; Willis, 1974). Considerable empirical evidence shows what
common sense would predict — that there is a correlation between smaller
preserves and more depauperate biota (Burgess and Sharpe, 1981;
Lovejoy and Oren, 1981; MacClintock et aL, 1977; Newmark, 1987).
Larger areas are believed to lose species much more slowly than smaller
areas and, under ideal mpnagement, it is hoped that a large enough area
would lose species at no greater rate than the long-term geological rate
(that is, species would be lost not faster than other species evolved to
replace them).
One of the reasons for species losses is undoubtedly that small
habitat patches are not large enough to sustain viable populations of
many of their rarer constituent species (Gilpin and Soule, 1986; Shaffer,
1981, 1990; Soule, 1987). On top of that, many species require multiple
habitats which smaller preserves cannot include. Some birds, for
example, nest in one kind of habitat and feed in another (see, e.g.,
Weaner and Merriam, 1979). Larger species and those high in the food
cham typically have large home ranges and require a great deal of space.
To sustain enough individuals of such species in a given area to constitute
a viable population may require a great deal of space. This means that
from the very date of establishment, smaller preserves simply cannot
sustain populations of many species.
Effects of Habitat Fragmentation
Fragmentation of the landscape by development or serious
disturbance produces remnant vegetation patches surrounded by a matrix
of a different sort. Lord and Norton (1990) pointed out four major
aspects of fragmentation as important for conservation: small fragment
Habitat fragmentation size, isolation, edge effects, and increased vulnerability to extrinsic
disturbances. Soule (1987) and Saunders et al. (1987) stated that the
primary impact of fragmentation on the biota is through loss of habitat
continuity, because any disruption of previously intact vegetation has some
effect on the population size of species dependent on that habitat.
Another serious effect is an alteration of the microclimate within and
surrounding the remnant. Thus, in a fragmented landscape there are
biogeographic effects compounded by changes in the physical environment
(Saunders et at., 1991).
The impact of habitat loss and isolation at a given scale of
fragmentation can be considered species-specific, but the physical impacts
of edge effects and increased vulnerability to disturbance are much more
dependent on the nature of fragmentation itself. The significance of edge
effects in geo raphica1 fragments has been well documented (Lovejoy et
at., 1986; Whitney and Runkle, 1981; Yaliner, 1988), with some studies
-------
12
indicating that edge effects may penetrate for several hundred meters into
fragments (Ranney et aL, 1981; Wilcove et al., 1986). Because of the
substantial internal modifications associated with smaller areas,
structurally fragmented vegetation can be regarded as being subjected to
edge effects throughout
The reduction in spatial continuity, together with edge effects,
increases the vulnerability of fragmented vegetation to extrinsic
disturbances such as windstorm, fire, and flooding. Although the
importance of this increased vulnerability has perhaps been less widely
recognized, it also has significant implications for the long-term viability
of fragmented vegetation (Pickett and Thompson, 1978).
Emphasis in the literature has been on the design of nature
reserves, but we are usually too late to do anything except try to manage
the remnants left following fragmentation. There is a pressing need for
an integrated approach that treats the landscape as a whole instead of as
a collection of biotic and legal entities (Saunders et a!., 1991). Noss and
Harris (1986) state that conservation agencies have not realized the
important biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation and have
therefore not developed policies to manage their remnants to maintain
conservation values.
Minimum Viable Populations
Where possible, sites should be large enough to support
populations of species above the minimum viable population (MVP) size.
The MVP refers to the minimum number of individuals required to
Viability of epeclee ensure the long-term survival of the population. Below this threshold,
genetic and demographic constraints may pose serious threats to the
population’s persistence (Murphy et al., 1990).
Critical factors affecting MVP include habitat heterogeneity and
suitability, environmental stochasticity, and population structure and
dynamics (Grumbine, 1990), all of which may vary with species. As a
gross approximation, an effective population size of 500 is considered to
be within the order of magnitude essential for long-term viability
(Franklin, 1980). Large tracts of land are often required to sustain viable
populations of animals such as large herbivores and carnivores. In a
study of eight U.S. parks, Newmark (1987) found that none were large
enough to sustain long-term populations (MVP = 500) of the five major
carnivores (grizzly bear, mountain lion, wolverine, black bear, and gray
wolf). For an MVP of 50, only one was large enough to support
populations of these mammals. Where it is impossible to preserve such
large unfragmented reserves, Bioreserve design must provide for an
adequate network of connections among smaller reserves across the
landscape. Properly managed, connections among smaller fragments may
be adequate to sustain viable population of large vertebrates.
Similar connections are also necessary for plants and invertebrates
(Shafer, 1990). Although these species generally exist at much higher
-------
13
population densities, they can also be sensitive to habitat fragmentation.
Linkages between subpopulations (termed “metapopulation dynamics”)
may be crucial to the persistence of endangered species of plants
(Menges, 1990) and invertebrates (Murphy et aL, 1990). Connections
between subpopulations allow for recolonization of a patch after
extinction occurs. Similarly, gene flow among patches prevents genetic
bottlenecks and genetic drift in small subpopulations. Population
substructuring also provides for resilience to extreme environmental
perturbations. For such species, the most prudent Bioreserve design
strategy is to maintain sufficient habitat patches to reduce the risk of
extinction (Shafer, 1990).
Preserve Enlargement and Management Interventions
Preserve enIagemen In many places, The Nature Conservancy has been able to enlarge
small preserves by acquiring adjacent lands. At some preserves, such as
Chiwaukee Prairie and Mianus River Gorge, The Nature Conservancy has
been acquiring additional acreage almost every year for more than 30
years. In many instances such assemblages have been government
reserves like Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge or additions to
reserves like the Okeefenokee, Yellowstone, or the Everglades. But it is
not always feasible to acquire adjacent lands, and it is rare that we are
able to make a preserve as large as we would like it to be, even through
a drawn-out process of land assemblage.
We have also sought to improve the viability of preserves through
intensive management, as in restoration of natural fire or other
disturbance regimes, suppression of aggressive weeds, or even hastening
Intenstve m nsgement ecological succession toward the desired community structure and
composition by direct replanting and species introduction programs. As
an example, the Conservancy probably uses prescribed burning to
maintain or restore fire-dependent biological communities on a larger
scale than anyone else except the Federal land management agencies.
Such intensive interventions will have to become the rule on smaller
preserves if we are to counteract further degradation of the general
landscape. With the advent of such pervasive threats to ecosystem
stability as rapid global climate change, in many places we simply will not
be able to do enough (see, e.g., Peters and Darling, 1984; Thompson,
1988; Webb, 1987).
Corridors as a Mitigative Factor
Corridors are suggested as a means to increase species imnniigration
to nature reserves and other habitat islands in fragmented landscapes, and
Restoring n t ty thus to maintain species richness (Harris, 1984). Corridors include linear
landscape features such as hedgerows and river banks, as well as broad,
internally heterogeneous zones that permit dispersal of species from one
region to another over long periods of time (Brown and Gibson, 1983).
-------
14
Siniberloff and Cox (1987) point out that while corridors are of
value for movement for a subset of the biota, there are potential
disadvantages such as spread of disease, pests, or fire, increased
mpintenance costs, and increased predation. The relative merits of
corridors will vary from place to place and depend on the target species.
BIORESERVES
Bioreserves are the next natural evolutionary stage in the
development of the Conservancy’s conservation programs. In many
instances they are emerging organically from the cumulative effects of
long-continuing efforts. Encouraged by our experiences in these areas, we
are elsewhere developing Bioreserve plans from scratch.
In the natural evolution of things, as the scale of Nature
Conservancy projects and preserve assemblies grew over the years, we
began to think about conservation on a larger scale. The Virginia Coast
Reserve (VCR) was especially influential in our thinking. At the VCR,
the Conservancy had created a broken mosaic of protected barrier islands
and a few mainland sites stretching more than 50 miles along the mid-
Atlantic coast. Our lands totaled nearly 50,000 acres but they were
Bioreaerve scattered over a land-and-seascape perhaps ten times as large. We began
deveIopmen to realize that after the expenditure of many millions of dollars and 20
years of effort, we had created a magnificent but imperfect nature
preserve. If the other nine-tenths of the ecosystem were to be intensively
developed or abusively used, our own lands would be severely affected.
At the same time, the islands in their pristine condition represent a
wonderful amenity to local citizens, full of history, replete with scenery,
rich with wildlife, and generous in ecological goods. A thriving fin and
shell fishery supports an industry that dates back as far as human
occupancy, as the prehistoric shell middens attest.
It was not feasible at the VCR simply to buy the rest of the land
and add it to the reserve. We gradually realized that if the total
ecosystem was to be maintained, the Conservancy would have to work
with the rest of the community to develop and execute a common plan.
The United Nations, in the early 1970s, had articulated a vision of large-
scale conservation called “Man and the Biosphere’. Borrowing from this
concept, we began to think about practical applications. The Bioreserve
idea was born.
Once we had agreed on the concept, four or five years ago, we
began to undertake an orderly process to identify where the best and
most promising areas were to be found. We also began thinking seriously
about how to understand what large ecosystems require to maintain their
integrity and how big, multifaceted reserve complexes could be managed.
Finally, we began to consider how the Conservancy could equip itself as
an organization to implement conservation successfully on this scale.
-------
15
Selecting and Designing Bioreserves
The Nature Conservancy, in cooperation with State r ’ ’tatura1
Heritage Data Centers (see section on Managing Conservation
Information), has developed what is probably the most systematic
Biodiveruity scorecer methodology in use today for the selection of candidate nature reserves
proceea for biodiversity conservation. This is referred to as the Biodiversity
Scorecard Process (Chipley and Jenkins, 1987; Hoose, 1981; Morse, 1987).
In this process an analysis is made of Elements of biodiversity by class of
Element. The classes into which Elements are usually divided are natural
communities, vertebrate animals , invertebrate animals , vascular plants,
and nonvascular plants. For each of these classes, the Elements are
arranged in descending order of endangerment (or conservation priority).
Within this hierarchy the Element Occurrences (these are the examples
of each Element at their geographic localities — the area occupied by a
population of a rare plant species, for instance) for each Element are
arranged in descending order of overall quality. Then the best
Occurrences of the most endangered Elements are combined into sites on
the landscape where as many as possible of the highly ranked ones occur.
The Scorecard process is an iterative one in that priorities
constantly change as conservation activities save a given site and the
Element Occurrences it contains, or some destructive force eliminates the
targeted Element Occurrences at another. Thus, a sort of conservation
profit-and-loss statement is set up for the constant reassessment of
conservation priorities. A number of conservation biologists doing
statistical modeling analysis of simpler but more quantitative methods
have recently concluded that such iterative approaches are the most
efficient for conservation planning (Anselin et al., 1989; Kirkpatrick, 1983;
Pressey and Nicholls, 1989).
We began our Bioreserve selection process initially by asking the
Bioreeerve uelect&on State Natural Heritage Programs and their Latin American counterparts
(called Conservation Data Centers) to extend their thinking to very large
sites of potential conservation interest. Partly they accomplished this by
looking at all the clusters of high-priority smaller sites that, when looked
at on small-scale maps, coalesce into reasonable complexes. They also
used their broad knowledge of their regions to identify large areas that
stood out in their own right because they contain relatively intact
landscape mosaics. Finally, they looked at broad, ecoregional provinces
within which there is little or no current land conservation to see whether
they could identify feasible “gap-fillers.” The Nature Conservancy’s field
offices joined in on these preliminary analyses, as did the various foreign
institutions cooperating with our international program.
From this preliminary analysis we identified more than 400
Bioreserve candidate areas in North America and at least 200 more in
Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (where we have a fledgling
program). Subsequently, our field staff and cooperators, led by the
scientific task forces in our regional offices, have been winnowing these
lists to select the areas in which we will finally initiate Bioreserve
-------
16
projects. In refining the lists, we have been considering such factors as
representation of high-ranking Element Occurrences from the Scorecards,
integrity of the existing ecosystem complex, the presence of Conservancy
or other reserves that could form the nucleus for expanded activity, and
any special factors of need or opportunity that could make a Bioreserve
important and successful. Greater weight will be placed on larger
community Occurrences and those in integrated landscape mosaics than
on more pristine examples that may be smaller or exist as isolated
fragments. As this refinement process continues, we will be cooperating
closely with other conservation agencies, especially the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service through its “gap analysis” program. This program
employs computer mapping (using GIS, or Geographic Information
Systems) of coarsely defined biological communities and the ranges of
vertebrate species to identify major ecosystems, regional landscape types,
and areas of special species richness that are underrepresented in existing
reserves (Scott et al., 1988). Such gap analyses are being undertaken in
a number of western states and are spreading to the eastern ones as well.
All of them cooperate closely with the State Natural Heritage Programs
and exchange information with them freely.
Another way in which the list of areas is being refined is through
thematic conservation analyses carried out on a continental scale. For
example, an analysis of prairie conservation in North America is being
conducted by the Conservancy’s Midwestern Regional Office, which is
taking the lead for the whole country because its region covers the
epicenter of historical prairie distribution. A number of Conservancy
offices and Heritage programs will be cooperating on an analysis of
endangered aquatic organisms and ecosystems. Our Eastern Regional
Office will play a key role in this analysis because many of the
endangered aquatic species are animals, and our Eastern Region manages
our central animal databases. Other thematic analyses are being
undertaken on migratory neotropical land birds and shorebirds to identify
critical migratory stopover points and areas of important concentrations.
A number of other agencies and institutions are concerned about
migratory birds, and we will be cooperating with them wherever we can.
Other thematic analyses will be started as additional themes emerge.
The process of Bioreserve selection is intimately related to the
design of the landscape unit to be conserved, in terms of the size and
shape of the area within the proposed project boundaries. As we focus
Biore,erve de gn more on the individual areas, we will be doing intensive inventories of the
biota and ecosystems found on them and in the vicinity, using satellite
imagery, aerial reconnaissance methods, and ground surveys. Boundaries
can be extended to include important Element Occurrences not found
within the initial target area. In many cases, a core area, often already
protected, will be identified, along with a neighboring buffer zone in
which activities designed to protect the core can be carried out.
As the process of selecting and designing Bioreserves continues, we
will extend our analysis, depending especially on Heritage data, to identify
important community and species Elements that are not represented on
-------
17
any of the Bioreserve sites. These will become even higher priorities for
conservation on smaller ancillary sites than they would have been in the
usual Scorecard process. As much as possible, however, we will be
concentrating on incorporating everything we can into a collection of
large and more viable sites.
Managing Bioreserves
Bioreserve management can be divided into two parts: managing
the strict nature preserves (what the Man and the Biosphere Program
Btoreeerve m.nigernen refers to as the “core” areas) and managing the buffer and multiple use
Lands. For a Bioreserve to be successful in the way we intend,
manpgement of both parts must be based on a solid understanding of the
ecosystems, what they are like under “natural” conditions, and how they
are likely to respond to our actions. To succeed we will have to study
such systems in a more profound way than we ever have in the past.
Ecosystems and biotic communities are the sum total of numerous
inputs; they are alive, and changeable. They react dynamically to
whatever forces are exerted upon them -- a cold winter, a summer
drought, a lightning fire, a strong wind, or a bulldozer. All the organisms
in them are constantly striving against their physical environment and
gainst each other. Almost any force will favor some more than others.
Typically a strong enough force operating for a long enough time, or
recurrently, will kill some outright. Usually others of a different species
Eeoey.tem rnRn gement will replace it. If the original force ceases to operate, eventually the first
species may reassert itself. An unusually strong force may effect such
pronounced changes in the physical environment (such as total loss of
topsoil or a drop in the water table) that the original species will be
permanently excluded. If we aspire to be “ecosystem managers,” we must
look very closely at the ecosystems under our care to see if we can
determine their most significant driving forces. Beyond this, we must
decide what kinds of interventions we are capable of making and what
sort of character we want these ecosystems to assume. It is clear that we
cannot merely “let nature take its course” to produce a desirable result.
That is how we used to think about nature. Our basic ecological
paradigm was a steady state or equilibrium model where ecosystem
characteristics were assumed to oscillate around a mean with a narrow
range of variation over time and a “climax” condition toward which they
were constantly tending. Not many ecologists think this way any more
(Botkin., 1990). We have begun to focus much more on the long-term
EcoLog caI dy mi m effects of climatic variations on regional ecosystems and on catastrophic
site-specific events that profoundly affect ecosystems at the local scale.
We have also come to realize that certain events that we once thought of
as catastrophic are really recurrent in many systems, especially fires, and
that the presence, absence, or frequency of such events can be as
determinant of ecosystem character as climate. Moreover, we have come
to recognize what a formidable geo’ogical force humans are and have
been for a long time. We have a unique ability to start fires, divert water,
and kill off keystone species. Finally, we cannot be completely confident
-------
18
that our projects will achieve their aims, based on historic evidence, when
humans themselves have ushered in an unprecedented collection of
ambient insults including acid precipitation, ground-level ozone, intense
ultraviolet radiation from the lack of high-altitude ozone, and greenhouse
gas concentrations that will probably cause global climatic change at
unique rates of speed.
After a Bioreserve site has been selected, the iterative process
moves into its next phase of ecosystem analysis, modeling, and
management prescription. In the long run, the real challenge in
biological land conservation at any scale is not the legal or administrative
protection of the real estate, which is only the beginning, but the proper
Management prescription management of ecosystems and species populations. It is a sufficiently
complex matter just to recognize endangered communities and species
and to identify the land areas most important to them. Understanding
their individual relationship to the landscape, disturbance regimes,
successional ecology, and susceptibility to cost-effective management
interventions is far harder. It will be crucial that we develop the ability
to determine the driving forces in a given Bioreserve or its component
ecosystems and the threats to system integrity. In most cases, our
management objectives will be keyed to the status of selected indicator
species, physicocheniical processes, or critical ecosystems.
Sustainable Uses of Buffer Lands
In addition to managing the core reserves in which the status of
the biota is to be optimized on Bioreserves, we must cooperate with our
fellow property owners to assist them in making use of the natural
resources on their lands in ways that are minimally harmful to the biota.
The very words “nature preserve” imply that humans have traditionally
been regarded as an intolerable ingredient in the natural scheme of
things. Conservationists have thought, not without reason, of humanity
as being such a destructive force that natural elements we wish to
preserve must be completely separated from human society, with a strong
fence in between.
In the 20th century, human society has become such a pervasive
force that it is not practicable to insulate nature from it. Indeed, the
human-occupied landscape has not been a total loss to the rest of the
biota, many of which find niches to their liking there. Some, like starlings
and house mice and the score or so of pervasive garden weeds, have
prospered so well that they share our own explosive ecological success
and have spread abundantly to nearly every landmass on Earth. Many
Humans in nature more species hang on in the remnant seminatural habitats like hedgerows
and drainage ditches. Under modified forms of management, even more
species could survive in the human-dominated landscape. If seminatural
meadows are not treated with pesticides, for example, they may make fine
habitat for butterflies at the same time that they can be mowed for hay.
-------
19
As an example of the complexity of balancing the management of
core reserves with multiple-use buffer lands, Jarizen (1983) has concluded
Balancing that if the object of a preserve is to maintain pristine community
remnants, it may be more desirable for surrounding lands to be put into
croplands or closely grazed pasture than in unmanaged successional
ecosystems. This is counterintuitive to most of us, but Janzen maintains
that the former contain fewer aggressive weedy species capable of
invading the natural communities. Such invading exotic or early
successional species could modify the species composition to the point
that the biological interactions and even the physical ecology could be
entirely changed, resulting in quite different conditions and associations
than those we intended to preserve. This shows what biological
conservationists face just to decide what constitutes “compatible land use”
on the multiple-use matrix of a Bioreserve. It will be even more
challenging to maintain the desired balance of uses over the long term.
SuetainabzI ty A key idea in managing the multiuse landscape is “sustainability.”
Saiwasser (1990a) reports that sustainable use/yield first emerged as a
doctrine for managing single resources. It was applied to soils, timber,
fisheries, game populations, agricultural crops, and even recreation. This
worked well while there were available resources to enable single-use
management to continue. As the demand for different resources began
to compete for a given piece of land, the notion of multiple use
developed. This was another good idea, that a variety of uses and
benefits could be derived from the same forest or rangeland. Increasing
demands have continued to place pressures on these resources to the
point where sustainability for all or some of these uses becomes
impossible.
People are now aware of the importance of ecosystem stability and
the conservation of biological diversity, and it is time to bring some
reality to what this means on the actual ground (or water). On the
Bioreserves, core conservation areas will make up a key part of the
landscape complex. Prudent conservation strategies will need to rely on
the integration of many sustainable forms of land uses and resource
management, including protection and production, restoration and
enhancement, education and recycling.
Monitoring
Tracking eIectiveneu Another important aspect of managing Bioreserves will be
monitoring our effectiveness so that we can detect our failings as early as
possible and modify our practices accordingly. Fortunately, the
Conservancy has already developed considerable experience in this area
from many ecological monitoring projects in existin reserves. Most of
these are of single species population trends or of biological community
responses to such things as prescribed burns. Such monitoring pro 3 ects
will be applicable to Bioreserves as well, where our management is likely
to be set by the condition of indicator or keystone species or community
types. We will also have to develop and apply additional methods,
especially the use of remote sensing data. Periodic processing of satellite
-------
20
imagery to detect changes in land use is one example. Aerial
reconnaissance methodology, possibly employing videography as a cost-
effective recording device, is another technology that we plan to explore.
Managing Conservation Information
Conservation information management cannot be discussed here
in detail, but it is of such fundamental importance and the Conservancy
has played such an important role in this area that some note needs to be
tn(ormat on management taken of it (see Anonymous, 1991; Jenkins, 1985, 1986). Successful
conservation in a complex world must become increasingly systematic and
sophisticated, and achieving this goal requires the mastery of an extensive
knowledge base. If we are to do what is needed and avoid wasting scarce
resources on unnecessary or undesirable enterprises, we must achieve a
much greater mastery than we currently have of the fields of knowledge
relevant to biodiversity conservation. This includes knowledge of biota
and ecosystems, of critical geographic relationships, of threats to
biodiversity, of efficacious conservation techniques, of important actors
and agencies in the conservation field, and of events that affect
biodiversity both positively and negatively.
Over the pa t 20 years, The Nature Conservancy has done a great
deal, in cooperation with various other institutions, in biodiversity and
conservation data management (see Anonymous, 1991). The role of State
governments especially deserves to be highlighted. Seventeen years ago
the first State Natural Heritage Data Center was established as a
cooperative effort between the South Carolina Department of Wildlife
and Marine Fisheries and The Nature Conservancy as a permanent and
dynamic program to master the information required for systematic
biodiversity conservation in that state. This effort has now grown to
include similar data centers in every one of the 50 states and most of the
other countries in the western hemisphere. This data network is
augmented by massive central databases maintained by the Conservancy
itself. An increasing number of Federal agencies are arranging to connect
to this system, often by installing counterpart data centers on their own
land management units. They have also produced considerable quantities
of the data now incorporated into the Heritage databases and are finding
it more efficient to cooperate with a multi-institutional network to
manage it. The similarities between managing large Federal areas for
multiple uses and cooperatively managing multiownership Bioreserve
complexes are producin useful convergences and efficiencies in the
development of information system enhancements.
In the iterative process of Bioreserve selection and design, the
Information management, tremendous amount of biodiversity and conservation-related data amassed
continued by the State and Latin Aine.rican Natural Heritage Data Centers will be
of incalculable importance. These data will permit Bioreserve selection
and design to be carried out in a comprehensive biodiversity-conservation
context in which the Heritage programs are the acknowledged leaders.
Heritage information on individual species and community types will be
-------
21
invaluable in choosing effective indicators, understanding threats to
ecosystem function, developing models for integrated management, and
designing and monitoring programs to measure degrees of success.
Expanding our information management scope to encompass
Bioreserves entails many new challenges. Among the areas of special
emphasis are computerized mapping and spatial information management,
a field in which some of our Federal cooperators have made major
advances. Another important area for system expansion involves the need
to incorporate information about applied conservation technology into our
networked databases. We are also making special efforts to interact more
effectively with academic and agency research scientists, especially
systematic biologists, and modification of our data systems to
accommodate such interactions are under way.
Managing Project Activities
The Conservancy has been known widely as “the most business-like
conservation organization” for many years. The size and complexity of
this Bioreserve initiative will test us in this respect.
As an example of business-like practices, the Conservancy has
always put stock in planning, performance evaluation, and accountability.
Inatitutioni management Every unit of the Conservancy has worked under an annual plan for many
years. We wrote the first long-range plan for the organization in 1971
and have written a new one every two or three years since. The process
has also been decentralized outward to the Conservancy’s individual state
field offices, most of which have now been through a strategic planning
process of their own.
When the Conservancy was undertaking mostly hundred-acre
projects, they could often be conceived, launched, and completed quickly
with the next one following immediately afterward. Bioreserves are
clearly a different proposition, and we decided at the outset that they
should be considered lifetime endeavors. Managerially, this approach is
probably more good than bad, because nothing is more important than
continuity of purpose. Nevertheless, operating on such a geographic and
temporal scale will demand that we improve our planning process.
Accordingiy, an individual strategic plan will be developed for each
approved Bioreserve with the same care that we put into our state and
overall corporate plans.
Partnerships
No conservation organization is an island. Conservation carried
Parther hip out on any worthwhile scale has become too complicated for any group
to attempt alone.
One of The Nature Conservancy’s mottoes has always been, “We
can work with you,’ 1 and no one has exhibited a wider array of cooperative
relationships. Our work with government agencies on cooperative land
-------
22
acquisition projects dates back to the early 1960s, our corporate associates
program to the 1970s. Through the State Natural Heritage Programs, we
have established the closest working relationships with State governments
(all of them) of any organization in the non-profit field. In Latin
America, we work closely with cooperating non-governmental partners,
endeavoring in all ways to help them become strong and effective
organizations.
Almost all of the Conservancy’s cooperative relationships are
working partnerships developed with other institutions that want to
accomplish specific tasks. The Bioreserves will necessitate a tremendous
expansion and decentralization of partnerships to the level of county
governments, county extension agents, local schools and colleges,
municipalities, and perhaps most important of all, individual private
landowners banded together to do something important locally.
Parks in Peril
The Bioreserve concept to be applied by our Latin American and
Pacific programs is essentially the same as the one we will be following
in the United States, but with several differences worth noting.
In many parts of the developing world, large parks and reserves
have been established, usually by government decree. Many of these are
Non-U S Biomerves in remote areas and in pristine condition. They include a number of
internationally designated Biosphere Reserves, established with the
multizone land complex in mind, often carefully conceived and designed.
Unfortunately, they are also often entirely lacking in direct physical
protection and management, constituting the “paper parks” mentioned
frequently these days. These reserves often differ from those in the
United States and other developed countries in that they contain people
-- indigenous people and cultures as much endangered by the pace of
change as any non-human inhabitants of these areas.
The most pressing need usually is for direct external assistance to
mount a credible protection and management effort for these areas.
Sometimes the financial assistance required is modest -- training,
infrastructure support, and land tenure. It does not seem sensible to pass
over these nascent protected areas while seeking to establish new ones.
Therefore, much of the Bioreserve effort in Latin America, and probably
in our new Pacific region, will be devoted to these “Parks in Peril.”
Another major consideration in the Latin American region is that
the tropical countries have the highest biodiversity in the world. The
sheer number of species and the complexity of the ecosystems necessitate
some differences in the way we conduct our inventory, data collection,
data management, and iterative conservation planning. Because of the
high biodiversity, “coarse filter” methods are particularly applicable;
therefore, some of the remote sensing and aerial reconnaissance
technologies mentioned in the section on monitoring will have much
-------
23
wider use in the tropics. They will be used for rapid ecological
assessment in selecting, designing, and data gathering on Bioreserves, as
well as in long-term monitoring.
CONCLUSIONS
The Nature Conservancy believes that landscape-scale Bioreserves have a crucial
contribution to make in maintaining our world’s biological and ecolo ical diversity. We
believe that such Bioreserves will become increasingly important with time. Our efforts to
date in selecting, establishing, and managing Bioreserves are merely the beginning of an
immensely complex field of endeavor. In cooperation with other agencies and institutions,
this effort will be a growing part of the Conservancy’s activity throughout the 1990s.
The goal of our Bioreserve program is to make the landscape more livable for people
as well as for other organisms. This is the essence of the Bioreserve idea. It is not a trivial
experiment, for if we can develop our scientific management capacity to a sufficient level
of competence, we can provide examples of human interaction with the environment that
can serve as models for the world.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank Dennis Grossman, Larry Morse, and Carolyn Thurman for helping to
prepare sections of this paper and Robert Chipley, Michael Coda, Gregory Low, Bruce
Stein, and William Weeks for reading and criticizing it.
REFERENCES
Anonymous. 1969. Diversity Stability in Ecological Systems . Brookhaven Symposiums
in Biology #22. Brookhaven, New York: Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Anonymous. 1991 (continually revised). Natural Heritage Program Operations Manual .
Arlington, Virginia: The Nature Conservancy.
Anselin, A., P.M. Meire, and L Anselin. 1989. Multicriteria techniques in ecological
evaluation: An example using the analytical hierarchy process. Biological Conservation
49:215-229.
Benke, A.C. 1990. A perspective on America’s vanishing streams. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 9(1):77-88.
Borrnan., F.J., and G.E. Likens. 1979. Pattern an Process in a Forested Ecosystem . New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant Harmonies : , New Ecology f Century . New
York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, J.H., and A.C. Gibson. 1983. Biogeography . St. Louis, Missouri: C.V. Mosby.
Burgess, R.C., and D.M. Sharpe, eds. 1981. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-dominated
Landscapes . New York: Springer-Verlag.
-------
24
Chipley, R., and R.E. Jenkins. 1987. Preserve Selection Design Manual . Arlington,
Virgima: The Nature Conservancy.
Desert Fishes Council Endangered Species Committee. 1985. Endangered aquatic
ecosystems in North American deserts with a list of vanishing fishes of the region. Journal
of Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 20(1):1-61.
Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic studies for
the design of natural preserves. Biological Conservation 7:129-146.
Diamond, J.M., and R.M. May. 1976. Island biogeography and the design of nature
reserves. In Theoretical Ecology: Principles Applications (R.M. May, ed.).
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Saunders.
Ecological Society of America. 1921. Preservation of natural conditions. Springfield,
Illinois: Ecological Society of America.
Ecological Society of America. 1926. Naturalist’s Guide 12 the. Americas . Baltimore,
Maryland: Williams and Wilkins Company.
Ehrlich, P.R., and A.H. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction : Ih Causes n j Consequences th
Disappearance f Species . New York: Random House.
Emmanuel, W.R., H.H. Shugart, and M.P. Stevenson. 1985. Climatic change and the
broad-scale distribution of terrestrial ecosystem complexes. Climatic Change 7:29-43.
Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology . New York: Wiley and Sons.
Franklin, I.R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations. In Conservation Biology :
4 Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective (M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox, eds.). Sunderland,
Massachussetts: Sinauer Associates.
Franklin, J.F., D.A. Perry, T.D. Schowalter, M.E. Harmon, A. McKee, and T.A. Spies. 1989.
Importance of ecological diversity in maintaining long-term site productivity. In Maintaining
jj Long-term Productivity f Pacific Northwest Forest Ecosystems (D.A. Perry et al., eds.).
Gilpin, M.E., and M.E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: Processes of species
extinction. In Conservation Biology : Ii Science .f Scarcity Diversity (M.E. Soule, ed.).
Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
Goodman, D. 1975. The theory of diversity-stability relationships in ecology. Quarterly
Review of Biology 50:237-266.
Grumbine, R.E. 1990. Viable populations, reserve size, and federal lands management: A
critique. Conservation Biology 4(2): 127-134.
Harris, LD. 1984. ]] Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeographic Theory jj th
Preservation f Biotic Diversity . Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Higgs, AJ. 1981. Island biogeography and nature reserve design. Journal of Biogeography
8:117-124.
-------
25
Hoose, P.M. 1981. Building k: Tools Lc.r th Preservation Qf Natural Diversity
Through Land Protection . Covelo, California: Island Press.
Hutchinson, G.E. 1959. Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of
animals? American Naturalist 93:145-159.
iltis, H.H., J.F. Doebley, R.M. Guznian, and B. Pazy. 1979. Z diploperennis
(Gramineae): A new teosinte from Mexico. Science 203:186-188.
Janzen, D.H. 1983. No park is an island: Increase in interference from outside as park size
decreases. Olkos 41:402-410.
Jenkins, R.E. 1975. The preservation of natural diversity. In Ih preservation f Natural
Diversity : , Survey Recommendations (J. Humke et al., eds.). Washmgton, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Interior Report.
Jenkins, R.E. 1979. Macro-reserves: The coarsest filter. Natural Heritage News II(2):5-6.
Jenkins, R.E. 1985. Information methods: Why the Heritage programs work. The Nature
Conservancy News 35(6):21-23.
Jenkins, R.E. 1986. Applications and use of biological survey data. In Foundations f .
National Biological Survey (Kim. K.C. and L Knutson., eds.). Lawrence, Kansas:
Association of Systematics Collections.
Jenkins, R.E. 1989. Long-term conservation and preserve complexes. The Nature
Conservancy Magazine 39(1):5-7.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27.
Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1983. An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of
nature reserves. Biological Conservation 25:127-134.
Lord, J.M., and D.A. Norton. 1990. Scale and the spatial concept of fragmentation.
Conservation Biology 4(2): 197-202.
Lovelock, J.E. 1979. Gala : New Look Earth . Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lovejoy, I.E., and D.C. Oren. 1981. The minimum critical size of ecosystems. In Forest
Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes (R.C. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe, eds.).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lovejoy, I.E., R.O. Bierregaard, Jr., A.B. Rylands et al. 1986. Edge and other effects of
isolation on Amazon forest fragments. In Conservation Biology : I Science j Scarcity
Diversity (M.E. Soule, ed.). Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
MacArthur, R.H., and E.O. Wilson. 1967. Il Theory f Island Biogeography . Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
-------
26
MacClintock, L, R.F. Whitcomb, and B.L Whitcomb. 1977. Island biogeography and the
“habitat islands” of eastern forest. II. Evidence for the value of corridors and mimmization
of isolation in preservation of biotic diversity. American Birds 31:6-12.
Maddox, D., and LE. Morse. 1990. Plant conservation and global climate change. The
Nature Conservancy Magazine 40(4):24-25.
Margules, C., AJ. Higgs, and R.W. Rafe. 1982. Modern biogeographic theory: Are there
any lessons for nature reserve design? Biological Conservation 24:115-128.
Martin, P.C., and R.G. Klein, eds. 1984. Ouarternary Extinctions : A Prehistoric Revolution .
Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.
Master, L 1990. The imperiled status of North American aquatic animals. Biodiversity
Network News 3(3): 1-2,7-8.
Master, L 1991. Aquatic animals: Endangerment alert. Nature Conservancy 41(2):26-27.
May, R.M. 1974. Stability jj Complextv j Model Ecosystems . 2nd ed. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
McAllister, D.E. 1991. What is biodiversity? Unpublished paper prepared for Keystone
Center for dialogue on biodiversity conservation (available from The Nature Conservancy).
McMahan, LR. 1990. Propagation and reintroduction of imperiled plants, and the role of
botanical gardens and arboreta. Endangered Species Update 8(1):4-7.
McNeely, J.A., KR. Miller, W.V. Reid, R.A. Mittermeier, and T.B. Werner. 1990.
Conserving th World’s Biological Diversity . Gland, Switzerland: International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; Washington, D.C.: World Resources
Institute, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund - U.S., and the World Bank.
Menges, E.S. 1990. Population viability analysis for an endangered plant. Conservation
Biology 4(l):52-62.
Miller, KR. 1989. Global Strategy £21 Conserving Biodiversitv . Washington, D.C.: World
Resources Institute.
Morse, LE. 1987. Rare plant protection, Conservancy style. The Nature Conservancy
Magazine 37(5): 10-15.
Murphy, D.D., K.E. Freas, and S.B. Weiss. 1990. An environment.metapopulation
approach to population viability analysis for a threatened invertebrate. Conservation
Biology 4(2):41-51.
Myers, N. 1983. , Wealth f Wild Species: Storehouse j Human Welfare . Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press.
Newmark, W.D. 1987. A land-bridge island perspective on mammalian extinctions in
western North American parks. Nature 325:430-432.
-------
27
Norton, B.G., ed. 1986. fl Preservation f Species : Ih Value f Biological Diversity .
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Norton, B.G. 1987. Why Preserve Natural Variety? Studies jj Moral, Political , j çj, Legal
Philosophy . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Noss, R.F. 1986. From plant communitites to landscapes in conservation inventories: A
look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41:11-37.
Noss, R.F., and LD. Hams. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: Preserving diversity at
all scales. Environmental Management 10:299-309.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Technologies to maintain biological diversity.
OTA-F-330. Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States.
Oldfleld, M. 1984. fl Value f Conserv ng Genetic Resources . Washington, D.C.: U. S.
National Park Service.
Peters, R.L, and J.D.S. Darling. 1984. The greenhouse effect and nature reserves.
BioScience 35:707-717.
Pickett, S.TA, and J.N. Thompson. 1978. Patch dynamics and the size of nature reserves.
Biological Conservation 13:27-37.
Pimm, S.L 1984. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307:321-326.
Pressey, R.L, and A.O. Nicholls. 1989. Efficiency in conservation evaluation: Scoring
versus iterative approaches. Biological Conservation 50:199-218.
Rarmey, J.W., M.C. Bruner, and J.B. Levenson. 1981. The importance of edge in the
structure and dynamics of forest islands. In Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated
Landscapes (R.L Burgess and D.M. Sharpe, eds.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Reid, W. V., and K. R. Miller. 1989. Keeping Options Alive : Scientific Basis
Conserving Biodiversity . Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
Salwasser, H. 1990. Conserving biological diversity: A perspective on scope and
approaches. Forest Ecology and Management 35:79-90.
Saiwasser, H. 1990a. Sustainability as a conservation paradigm. Conservation Biology
4(3):213-2 16.
Saunders, DA, G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbridge, and AJ.M. Hopkins. 1987. Nature
Conservation : :fl] Role f Remnants f Native Vegetation . Chipping Norton, N.S.W.,
Australia: Surrey Beatty and Son.
Saunders, D.A., RJ. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of
ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5(1):18-32.
-------
28
Scott, J.M., B. Csuti, K Smith, J.E. Estes, and S. Caicco. 1988. Beyond endangered
species: An integrated strategy for the preservation of biological diversity. Endangered
Species Update 5:43-48.
Segman, R. 1959. Wanted: Poisonous fish. Science News Letter, June 27, 407 and 410.
Shafer, C.L 1990. Nature Reserves: Island Theory gn Conservation Practice .
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Shaffer, M.L 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience
3 1: 13 1-134.
Shaffer, M.L 1990. Population viability analysis. Conservation Biology 4(1):35-40.
Simberloff, D., and LG. Abele. 1982. Refuge design and island biogeographic theory:
Effects of fragmentation. American Naturalist 120:41-50.
Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors.
Conservation Biology 1(1):63-71.
Simpson., B.B., and M. Connor-Ogorzaly. 1986. Economic Botany: Plants j Q World .
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Soule, M.E., ed. 1987. Viable Populations f Conservation . New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Stone, C.D. 1988. Should Trees Have Standing ? Portola Valley, California: Tioga
Publishing Company.
Terborgh, J. 1989. Where Have Birds Gone ? Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Thompson, R.S. 1988. Vegetation dynamics in western United States: Modes of response
to climate fluctuations. In Vegetation History (B. Huntley and T. Webb III, eds.). Volume
VII in Handbook f Vegetation Science (H. Leith, ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kiuwer Publishers.
The Nature Conservancy. 1981. 30th Anniversary Issue: A History. The Nature
Conservancy News. 31(4):1-30.
UNESCO. 1974. Report f th Task Force n Criteria Guidelines fr i: th Choice
Establishment ç f Biosphere Reserves . MAE Report Series 22. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 1984. Action plan for Biosphere Reserves. Nature and Resources 20(4):1-12.
Webb, T., III. 1987. The appearance and disappearance of major vegetational assemblages:
Long-term vegetational dynamics in eastern North America. Vegetatio 69: 177-187.
Wegner, J.F., and G. Merriam. 1979. Movements by birds and small mammals between a
wood and adjoining farmland habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology 16:349-357.
-------
29
Whitney, G.G., and J.R. Runkle. 1981. Edge versus effects in the development of a beech
maple forest. Oikos 37:377-38 1.
Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities Ecosystems . 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.
Wilcove, D.S., C.H. McLellan, and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the
temperate zone. In Conservation Biology : Ih Science f Scarcity Diversity (M.E.
Soule, ed.). Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.
Willis, E.O. 1974. Populations and local extinctions of birds on Barro Colorado Island,
Panama. Ecological Monographs 44:153-169.
Wilson,, E.O. 1980. Resolutions for the 80’s. Harvard Magazine, January-February.
Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Yahner, R.H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology
2:333-339.
-------
Bio diversityfi
Network
News
Biological and Conservation Data and Applications “ T .
The Imperiled Status of North American Aqu Ani als ,
detailed information oni the d b tion of these species
within their local jurisdi(iions mncliiding specific informa-
tion about individual occurren of rare tan.
\c .
A remarkably diverse assemblage of freshwater fishes and
invertebrates live in North America’s rivers and lakes.
For esample, more than 700 native species of freshwater
fishes, 300 species of freshwater (unionid) mussels, and
300 species of crayfIshes oceur north of Mexico. Diversity
in these and other aquatic groups is particularly high in
the southeastern United States, perhaps due to the
topographic diversity and relative climatic stability. No
other areas in the world have as many endemic aquatic
gastropods (snails) as the Coosa River drainage in
Alabama or as many endemic freshwater mussels as the
Tennessee River system (Palmer 1985). The Tennessee
River system also boasts 52 darter species, almost one-
third of the family Percidae, a worldwide group of fishes
(Page 1983). Althoueh the North American diversity of
fishes and aquatic invertebrates does not approach that of
tropical rivers in South America. Africa, and Asia. it far
exceeds that of European fresh waters (Sheldon 1988).
All North American fishes, mollusks, crayfishes.
dragonflies. damselflies. and other selected aquatic inver-
tebrates are tracked in the central zoological databases at
The Nature Conservancy Headquarters. For each taxon
(a species or subspecies), these central databases track the
standard scientific and common names and synonvms
global, national, and state or provincial ranks and official
statuses; distributions; habitats; ecolo , and other life
history information; management information; and much
more. This information is continuously augmented and
updated through the collective efforts of the network of
individual data centers working closely with the academic
communiw, especially systematists and the museum
community. Individual data centers, which routinely and
regularly exchange information with the central databases
and also access them directly, maintain considerably more
Patterns
Unfortunately, there ate many rare and imperiled
aquatic ta among the thou. s of vertebrates and in-
vertebrates tracked in these databases. A recent search of
the Conservancy’s central databases revealed the interest-
ing data in Figure 1 (Page 2). Note the relative rarity
(percent of species ranked (3X-G3) of species in aquatic
groups. In comparison, the terrestrial fauna of North
America is relatively intact.
Several recent papers review the disquieting status of
North America’s aquatic fauna. A recent paper by
Williams a aL (1989) reviews the status of fishes in North
America including Mexico. The authors list as endan-
gered, threatened, or special concern 364 species or
subspecies, including approximately 30% of the native
freshwater fish species found in North America north of
Mexico. Since the previous version of this list (Deacon c i
aL 1979), 139 ta have been added and 26 ta have been
deleted. The 26 deleted taxa include 16 ta removed
because of better information on their taxonomy or status
and ten ta now thought to be extinct. Although no tam
were removed from the list due to successful r verv
efforts, the authors suggest that their list would have been
much longer “without the strong effort of federal, state,
and private organiiauons” to protect aquatic habitats.
Similar patterns of endangerment can be seen in
other groups of aquatic organisms. Freshwater mollusks
US J JD Suppoit for Central American CDC’S p.5
.The
.\aturr
Lany Master, Chief Zoologist
VoL 3, No. 3, 19
-------
2
have been particularly impacted.
One in every ten North American
freshwater mussel species has
become extinct in this centuiy, and a
majority of the remainder are
imperiled. 62 species of aquatic
snails endemic to Alabama’s Coosa
River are thought to be extinct
(Palmer 1985).
Causes of Imperilment
Miller et aL (1989) review the
causes of the extinctions of 27
species and 13 subspecies of North
American (including Mexican) fishes
during the past century. They
conclude that the most important
cause of the decline and subsequent
extinction of these fishes was
“habitat loss,” a contributing actor
foratleast73%ofthe4Olaza. The
second most common factor was the
competitive and predatory effects of
introduced species (cited for 68% of
the 40 tam). These factors are
followed by chemical alteration or
pollution (38%), hybridization
(38%), and overharvesting (15%).
Similarly, Williams er aL (1989)
list five types of threats, either singly
or in combination, for each of the
364 imperiled freshwater fish tam
discussed in their report Habitat
loss, involved in 93% of the Listinga,
figured even more prominently in
their study. The biological effects of
introduced species, including
hybridization. and restricted range
were the other major factors con-
tributing to a species listing (Hartel
1990). Based on trends since a similar
study was published ten years earlier,
Williams et aL inescapably conclude:
“fl health of aquatic habitats in North
America continues to d y.”
Palmer (1985) and Stansbery
(1970) indicate stream impound-
ment and pollution to be the most
important factors leading to the
imperilment of freshwater mollusk.
Stream Impoundment. resulting in
upstream flooding and siltation,
causes lowered oxygen levels or the
loss of well-oxygenated riffle habitat
No. of U.S.
(not subspe
OX ( &cUn
OH lstoflca
— —
01 (cnbcslly Imperiled)
03 (rare. not Impenled)
0405 —
& sbwidant
0? (not yet ranked)
Total
of Total
— OX-Ga
% of Total - E or T’
required by many species. In ad-
dition. fluctuations in daily discharges
and cold-water (hypotimnetic)
discharges are often factors down-
stream from dams.
Other reasons for the demise of
our freshwater fauna are less obvious.
Part of the problem certainly relates
to public relations. Aquatic species
lack fur or feathers and exist in
environments where few persons can
see and appreciate them. ft is much
more difficult to muster public
support for their conservation
(Sheldon 1988). Most small nongame
fishes, for e mple, are usually
perceived as “minnows” whose
primary value lies in their use as bait
or food for larger species. Moreover,
fishes have been somewhat ignored by
conservation biologists. (For an inter-
esting viewpoint on this topic, see
McCIanahan 1990.) Although at least
56% of native freshwater fishes in the
U.S. and Canada receive some legal
protection in at least part of their
range (Johnson 1987), far fewer,
especially in proportion to birds and
mamnlaLç are listed by the U.S. flsh
& Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service as endan-
gered or threatened (Allendorf 198&
Sheldon 1988 and compare the last
two lines in the table derived from
TNC’s central databases).
Allspecieshavea right to live.
From a practical point of view, these
species are of immense value to us;
fish are a major source of food world-
wide. As the oldest. largest. and most
diverse group of vertebrates, fish are
valued by scientists as “experimental
models for studies in embryology,
neurobiology, endocrinology, envi-
ronmental biology, and other areas”
(Powers 1989). For ezample, the gila
toprninnow (Poeczliopsir occzdeiuaLir),
federally listed as endangered, is
being used for cancer research in
Germany. Many of these species are
obvious indicators of water quality.
As Sheldon (1988) asserts: “The con-
servation of fishes is also compatible
with the protection of other organ-
isms, such as mollusks and crayfishes.
and of riparian vegetation, water
quality, amenity, and the entire spec-
trum of values of running-water eco-
s 1ems.”
Solutions
Conservationists should give
increased attention to rare aquatic
laza because their numbers are dis-
proportionately imperiled when
compared to terrestrial fauna.
Heritage program biologists arc
already doing this in a number of
• Aqu c Animal’ coratnu.d page 7
Fkiure 1. Status of Selected Animal Grouns of North America
Mammals Birds Reptiles AniDhiblans Fishes
0 3
0 2 0 1
Cray- Unlonid
fishes Mussels
8
23
19
18 1 12
1 2 17
23
9
23
628
e
10
26
231
62 55 9
443 762 301
23 78 62 88
17 72 49 49
26 110 84 35
153 549 106 73
3 24 9 26
852 313 300
13 11 14 28 34 65 73
6 5 8 3 7 1 11
Th. final line repreeenta the percent of species listed by the (iS. Fish and Wildlife Service or
National Marine Flehenes Service as Endangered or Threatened a.044115/90.
-------
7
Field Notes
Louisiana
As a result of recommendations
made by Louisiana Heritage Program
and others, hundreds of thousands of
waterbirds within the Chandeleur
chain of islands are now federally
protected and managed. Under the
Louisiana Barrier Islands Manage-
ment Agreement, the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
transferred management of several
small islands in the Chandeleur and
Breton Sounds to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as part of the Breton
National Wildlife Refuge, the second
oldest refuge in the country.
The transferred islands include
Curlew, North, New Harbor, Free
Mason, Old Harbor Island Shoal,
North and South Grand Goster, and
— tern c ony.
Ph c: U.S. Fish &
Wildlife S.Mc.
“any unnamed or new islands that
may develop active waterbird
nesting colonies.” The largest tern
nesting colony in the United States
(approximately 60,000 nests) can be
found on these islands, as well as
1,900 brown pelican nests, tens of
thousands laughing gull nests, nu-
merous wading bird rookeries, and
nesting beaches for threatened marine
sea turtles.
Gary Lester states that the
agreement, which runs through April
30,2015, helps to guarantee the islands
and surrounding waters will remain
one of the most fertile wildlife and
fisheries habitats in the country.
‘Aquatic Animals’ from page 2
states. In Montana, Natural Heritage
Program CoordinatoriZoologist
David Genter is working with the
University of Montana and the
American Fisheries Society to
develop a gene-strain registry for
monitoring the genetic purity of
cutthroat trout (see BNNJ1).
Nevada Heritage Program Coordina-
tori’Zoologist Glenn Clemzner is
working with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Seivice and the Nevada
Department of Fish and Wildlife on a
recovery plan for the Big Spring
Spine*lace (Lepi4o neda moilispinis
prolensis). Ron Cicerdllo, Kentucky
Nature Preserves Commi ion
Zoologist, will be leading a workshop
on aquatic species identification,
protection, monitoring, and manage-
ment at this fall’s Eastern North
American Heritage Conference.
Heritage Zoologists in most eastern
states spend a significant proportion if
not a majority of their field time sur-
veying and accumulating information
on rare aquatic species in their states.
Inventory efforts and current
information on the whereabouts
and status of rare aquatic species
are only the beginning of the
solution. To protect aquatic
systems conservation workers must
assess not only impacts in the
immediate vicinity of the element
occurrence, but also potential
impacts far removed (e.g., up-
stream). As Sheldon (1988) and
Williams et aL (1989) point out,
conservationists should consider
the protection of entire watersheds
and ecosystems.
The Nature Conservancy and
other organi7ations, using data
compiled by Heritage Programs in
the U.S. and Conservation Data
Centers in Canada and Latin
America, are beginning to tackle
the conservation of aquatic systems
in earnest. Past Conservancy
initiatives include a campaign to
protect selected rivers in the South,
funded in large part by the R.K.
Mellon Foundation, and a “streams
of life” campaign by the Conser-
vancv’s Arizona Field OffiCe. New
initiatives include multi-institutional
efforts to protect Big Darby Creek in
Ohio, French Creek in Pennsylvania
and New York and selected Upper
Tennessee and Cumberland river
drainages in Virginia, Kentucky and
Tennessee- .ihe m t diverse riverine
systems in each state. We can only
hope that these and other efforts are
not too little, too late for the remain-
ing extant but imperiled ta inhabit-
ing North America’s freshwater
ecosystems.
Uterature CIted
Allcndtrt. F. W. l . Comavat bio o y of
fith . C tM .raflc , 2145-14&
Dcscon.J. E.,G. Ko Uc ,i. D. WtI1As .. £ Coo-
u u. .ad othai. 1979. F of NorJi
Ainaici ad2n* . thr t . or c i sp
o n 1979. Fi (B.rthrada)4:29-44.
Hand, K. E. 1 ). L w N Ammc i
ft . Mi ei m of gp .
vird Unr. iacy, Ca teid c. UopzbL anu.
‘awL
Job, on . i. E. 1987. J ro 4 ft ma the tithed
S aid Canada. A cn n F SOOC V,
MD. 4 2pp.
Mc(lianT.R. 1990. Vie ’potht Art a-
v*ticmas.s Iisb bi o1a7 &c*S sor 2.
Mi1 , R. R.. .1. D. WIU , aed i. E. William,.
“Aqu c AnárnsW’ coi’ld g. 8
-------
8
“Aqu c Mimals “ from p s 7
1989. of North Amaiom
during the * oretwy. FL ia (Be.
tbcsda) 1422-38.
Page, L PA. 1 . Hzmd&th of mi
Na*w l H oiy Swwy, QIan3 ign. 271 pp.
Palmer, S. 1985. Some mo lus of the
U.S.A. A cia 13 1 7.
Powen, D. A. 1989. F u modal g izc . S d.
mor 24&35 3S&
Sheldcm . A. L. 1988. Cot ervauoo of su m
fls&s Uerns of dMiiity, rarity, and mk.
C i &oiogs’ 2149-l5&
Slansbcty, D. H. 1970. Eantern frodiwatcr mci-
lwb (1) T Miu ipp and St. Lawi i
RivcrsyuZ . Ma1xi iogsa 10.19-21.
USD1 (U.S. Department of the liztenor). 1990.
Endangornd and threnleriod wtldli(e and
planta . ThIe 50, Code of Federal Regulatio
17.11 and 17.12,15 April 199 U.S. Flab and
WUdIJICSCrVIor. Waslzin toa,D.C. 36 pp.
WiUiams.J. Li. E. Johnson, D. A. Hendncboa.
S. Ccotrerm .Balderu, . 7. D. Williams, PA.
Navarro-Mcndcsa. D. E. McAIli gr. andi.E.
Denam. 1989. FLtherOfN ,An1mCaer4 I-
— or of çerlal 1989.
F ber ia (Beth da) 14:2. .
Thee
NatureY
c0 enhan9’
1815 N. Lynn Street
Arlington, VA 22209
U.S.A.
Biodiva3wy Nerwc * Newt, VoL 3, No.3,1990. The Nature
Conservancy, Science Division newsletter is published quarterly for
Heritage, CDC and TNC staff, volunteers and aoperators.
Editorial Staff
Richard Warner
Brandy ( iire
Ruth McMullen
Science DMslon
Director, Development and Outreach
Editor, Production & Design
Assistant Editor
Robert E. Jenkins, Jr.
Hardy Wieung, Jr.
Larry Morse
Larry Master
Dennis Grossman
Robert Chipley
Carol Hodge
Keith Carr
Bruce Stein
Vice President, Science Division
Deputy Director/Legal Adviser
Chief Botanist
Chief Zoologist
Chief Ecilogist
Director, North Ameriean Heritage Operations
Dir. of Administration, North Amer. Heritage
Director, Conservation Systems & Progr2mmlng
Director, Latin Ameri Science
Contributina Artists
Melissa Momson (Pseudaats b’Lrenata). John Prince (Hawaii Map).
0 Pnnted Recycled Paper
-------
“EPA
‘\vIessage
From Susan Wayland
Deputy Director
Office of Pesticide Programs
Rece mlv. I had the delightfully dif-
cult job of helping to select new
dangered species desi from
umorig e ’ era1 hundred competing
entries. Wc re impre ed with the
crcati t of the designs uhmitted!
(onizratuldtlons 10 \4r. Dale Herter
ho e winning cntr (shown inside)
cxpre ses a complex theme in a
omplc and compelling vision.
During the remainder of 1990, EPAs
Endangered Species Protection Pro-
gram will concentrate on:
• implementing five state pilot
pro riims (FL, NM. ND, SC, and
CA)
• de e loping and distributing educa-
tional materials:
• r achine agreement with pesticide
rnanufacturcr . 1 SDA, and the
Cooperative Exte nsion Service on
bulletin distribution; and
• publishing the I nal Endangered
pccie Protection Program in the
Federal Register .
.\‘ alwa’ s. we arc seeking practical
Solutions that preserve American
aizrieulture while pfl)tect [ n Cfl-
langered species. The subject of our
d article •- new and innovative
iJEC programs -- is an important
step in finding that balance.
Pest:c:d , s A-’d
Tox c Substances
(H7506C)
Endangered Species Update
be negotiated, the olfected areas will
come under the EPA labeling. bulletin
approach as well as state pesticide
regulations affecting endangered
species.
The advantages of a landowner aLrce-
ment include the opportuniue tor
offering individualiied education on
pesticide management: defining con-
tractual responsibility for the land-
owner to monitor an endangered
species; and keeping the disclo urc of
endangered species sites to minimum.
thereby preventing potential vandalism
and/or illegal collecting.
In li a. numerous agencies are in.
volved. IDALS is the state lead agenc
on pesticide control regulations and is
handling the negotiation and monitor-
ing of landowner agreements. The
Iowa Depanment of Natural Resources
is assisting IDALS in identifying
populations of prairie bush-clo cr by
pinpointing habitat areas and develop-
ing management plans for protection of
the species. Finally, the Iowa State
University Extension Service is develop-
ing and distributing educational
materials on the prairie bush-clover
and pesticide practices.
Another individualized approach, short
of landowner contracts, is being taken
in New Mexico and North Dakota
where state officials intend to meet with
A number of ‘States have moved ahead
in de eloping endangered species
protection plans. They include Califor-
nia. Florida, Hawaii, [ owa. New
\Iexico, North Dakota, and South
Carolina. EPA has encouraged states
to initiate plans that tailor endangered
species protection measures to the
needs and circumstances of each state.
State - initiated recommendations offer-
ing equal or greater protection will be
accepted by EPA as the federal require-
ments within that state, when approved
by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Most
of the proposed state-initiated plans
rely on the federal system of maps and
bulletins, but they also make use of a
variety of other techniques and ap-
proaches, some of them highlighted
below.
Landowner Agreements in Iowa
For species with highly restricted
ranges, landowner agreements are
becoming an increasingly popular
option. In Iowa. plans are being
developed to solicit agreements with
landowners to protect the prairie bush-
clo er trom pesticide-related threats
(see page 4 for a profile of this species).
The agreements will represent formal
written contracts between the land-
owner and the Iowa Department of
.Auriculture and Land Stewardship
(IDALS). Where agreements cannot
Ur
Envrcrirre-’tai P ctecton
Agen:y
State-Initiated Endangered Species
Protection Plans
C niinued on page 3
-------
Endangered
Species Design
Contest
In cC brat iC fl ‘I h I),
F:P.-\ OtIiL . t Pe i RL F
v ith th .‘r:J
I und. held a d ign . .nt -
Endani er...d Srecles Pr i ti r l’r
rjrn. (. lose to ()‘ I ntrL . r
muted. on the theme t l1t ’ all
and J mcnLs rn thL fl inkrr -
The inning J ’i n i rktur J h -
and ‘. a ’ du - pla cJ at the ( arItol
in ‘ \ ‘hin ton. D. C. during Larih
Week. Our winner, Dale Herter of
cattk. Washington. is not a prole-
SR)fldl artist -- in aU. he had to m .i c a
pccial trip to an art suppk iore to pur-
chase a ci)mpass in order to draw the
design.
Mr Herter is a pr I c ma! biologist
ho works part-time for Ala ka Bioloizi-
cal Research. a pri atc research corn-
pans lo jted in Fairbanks. ifl%e tleatIfle
wildlife habitats in areas .hcduled f r
oil exploration or de Cl( rrnent \tr.
Netter also orks us an independent
consultant in the cattle area. Most
rccentl he has been conducting
poued ‘ Ur’C - . for the S attIe-
based Plum (reek Timber Company.
. - a hohk. Mr. Herter occasionally
leads natural histor tours in Alaska,
hcre he lived for 10 ‘years. We asked
him how he came up with the idea for
the desien. I- Ic replied that when he
- a the notice for the contest posted at
the 1 ni ersitv of Washington, his reac-
tion was, wow oure asking or the
u or Id!
In Mr. Herters dc iizn of the world.
‘ outh America is repr nt J the
Minnesota trout lih. \orth \mc ri .i
a bird, and to shi iw that h w rk: a
prcti niall rlace. I enca—.... .1 tin .i
drop of wat.r.
RunneN- up ri h cont . L Pre ’-t ‘n
\1 William ’S of North \ e ’L a. ( who
i-’ , zrjJu,ii int thiS r .
Bachelor’ decree in raph
and works as a mai .jeer ifl I\U.II : :er
chandising for se eraI retail stiEcs,
Tro Chrisanthis of Columbia. s( . a Stu-
dent in graphic desicn at the L ni er- i1
of South Carolina: Susan L. V ci man.
a commercial graphics designer in
Ltan. VA who teaches Wusration at
orthern \ir nIa (ommunit (liege.
and Allen Demorest of san Pablo. (A.
who works at EPA ’S Reizion ) office.
Thanks to all of ou who entered our
contest, celebrating Earth Da ’ alon
with the empIo ees of EPA. ‘t our hard
work and ereati’yit were an in piruiin
to everyone. V ’ c hope that ou can Con-
tinue to express your COflCCrfl for the
en’yironment through your art work.
Update on Canada’s Endangered Species Program
.\ of June l)t ’). 1$l plant and animal
species were included on Canada’s
endangered species list. Species are
assigned to one of fise catekt)ries: ‘ u1-
nerable, threatened, endangered,
extirpated. or extinct. tnce 1977 rep-
resentatises of federal. provincial, and
territorial go ernments and national
iflservatiofl Orgafli/at ions have
coope rated on listing endangered
species, research, and Lnlormauon CX-
change through the Committee on the
tatu of Endangered Wildlife in
(anada ((() I\ I(’).
..\ separate initiative called the Renew
Program ha also begun rcco’er
proitrams for ndan e red terrestrial
ertehiates. Although there are cur-
rentlv no plans for federal endangered
species e islatuon. endanee red species
initie’ i es ma he included n the
Canadian government’s Environmental
Agenda, expected out this Fall.
Pesticidal threats to endangered
species are just beginning to receive
attention in Canada. A joint govern-
ment, private commission of the Pes-
ticide Review Board was recenti given
a mandate to examine the pesticide
registration process and recommend
improvement. The commission s
report is expected to be circulated for
comment by this summer.
At the (‘anadian Wildlife Service, work
is proceeding on incorporating en-
dange red species data into a geo-
graphic information system, and on
cttorts to build endangered srecies
considerations into the regular hazard
assessments for pesticides. To date.
this has been done onl for carbofuran.
Special reviews are also underwa on
some herbicides (atraiine and MCPA).
which may include endangered species
assessments. Evaluations of ecological
hazard data are performed by three
agencies of two federal departments
(the Canadian Wildlife Service and the
Commercial Chemicals Branch of
Environment Canada, and the Depart-
ment of Fisheries and Oceans) before
being turned over to the Agriculture
Department for a final decision on
pesticide registration.
For further information on pesticide
hazard assessment, contact Pierre
Mineau at the Canadian Wildlife Ser-
vice, (819) )7-34 45 , To receise the
Recovery newsletter, contact the
Editor. Recover.,’ Newsletter, (‘anadian
Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,
Ottawa. Ontario K1A OHI
Dale Herter’s winning entry
-------
State-Initiated Plans (continued)
indi idual gr wcr who ha c fields in-
sid. the restricted map areas. Based on
their cropping plans and pesticide use
pau.rns. r crs will he assistcd in
‘ Joping pest cntrol plans using
JIlL rnati c pesticides or other manage-
ment Ir ,iLceies for aIf’cct d Ikids.
Ranking Species in Hawaii
es.rul slates are ranking the listed
sp..ie’ located within their borders in
order to prioritiie their rts. In
Ha uii, for example, a committee uses
gene ra knowledge of range, distribu-
tion, and habitat to rank each species
na scale oft) to . A rink of repre-
cnt- the highest potential for pes-
ticide to affect a species. Out of 29 en-
dangered and threatened animal
species in Hawaii. 7 were ven a rank
I 4 (high risk); the remaining .22
rc eived a rating of 0-1 (slight risk).
Ha aii proposes to undertake protec-
tion efforts beginning with higher risk
categories first.
Ranking Sites in North Dakota
North Dakota is also using a ranking
system, in this case grouping sI [ cs
rather than species. The state is con-
cerned with three endangered species --
pipini! plo ers. least terns. and bald
eagles. Portions of 21 counties have
been identified as ‘A” sites, meaning
that one or more of the endangered
species breeds at the site. A” sites are
to be sur c ’ ed every year; they include
a half-mile buffer ione around the ac-
‘ tual breeding location, and pesticide
use limitations appl at these sites.” B”
sites have suitable habitat, hut the en-
dangered birds have been known to
breed in these locations onl one Year
in the last SLX cars. These areas arc to
he surveyed eser year for the presence
of the birds. Finally. .• sites are his-
toric breeding sites for the species with
no uCti it in the past 10 years. The
North Dakota plan includes provisions
for updating these habitat categories
and for including site designations in
the map and bulletin s stem.
Species Plans in Florida
prototype species plans” to implement
a tailored program fur each species
separately. In these pldns. basic intor
mation about a spccie ’ hiloe is Used
to de clop a spccilic rog.1’am of educa-
lion. monitoring, and pesticide use.
The first prototype plan developed as
for the evergiade snail kite which
migrates into aericultura! areas during
‘lears of drought. By monitoring the
water lc cls within the eonser atIon
areas where the bird rmally nests.
florida officials hope to anticipate the
snail kites’ mo ements into drought
areas. The plan’s pesticide use pro-
gram would go into effect in these arc as
only at such times.
Task Forces in Florida and
New Mexico
Ta forces have been established in
sc’s. al states to help de eIop and im-
plement an endangered species 1 pes-
ticide program and to reflect a wide
range of concerns. In florida. for ex-
ample, the task force k comprised of ‘4
members, with representatives from
federal, state, and local governments.
agriculture, and environmental or-
ganizations.
Another model is the \cw 1exico En-
dangered Species rask Force, made up
of federal and state officials from the
New 1cxico Departments of Agricul-
ture: Energy, Minerals, and satural
Resources; Game and Fish; The State
Land Office; Highway Department;
and the New Mexico State L’ni ersity
Cooperative Extension Servicc, as well
as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and
Forest Service.
In addition to providing general
guidance in implementing the program.
the New Mexico task force is expected
to play a key role in evaluating applica-
tions for special use permits. Using
specific maps which show the exact
location of ii.sted plant species, the task
force can approve applications for
special permits to use pesticides within
the prescribed buffer iones, if they
determine that such use will not adver-
sely affect the listed species. 0
Design Contest
Runners Up
Preston \1. %ilIiams
Troy (hrisanthis
susan L. %%eissman
lIen Dvmore t
The State of Florida has developed
-------
Profile of a
Threatened Species:
Prairie Bush-Clover
\ ith H m EPA. mitirul
r’urcc agencic in c.
tU c are neotiat:n
mc n H ith 1ando IiCN tO
protect the threatened prairie
hu h -clover (L ‘ [ ) J ca leptos-
tac/7 L1) from pe ticde exposure
and other threats.
The delicate closer, a member
of the pea family, has been
federall ’ listed since 19S7.
Prairie bush clover currentl ’
ro s in onl 37 1tCs, located in
I i wa, northern Illinois, southern
V 1scon in, and southern \Iin-
ne ota. It is a herbaceous peren-
nial, usuall found on gentle,
north-tacing slopes of prairies.
Stems can gro to one meter in
hei ht and tioweN can he white
or veNo i h- hite to light pink
with a magenta mark.
:\ iricultural acti tv ha rcat!\
edL:ccd the d\ i!ablc ha i t of
prairie hush cl cr. Current
threats include con er ion ot
pasture to cropland, heavy graz-
ing, herbicide application, and
rural residential development.
Prairie bush clover is one of
only two species providing na-
tive genetic stock for breeding
of cold tolerant bush clovers
suitable for the midwest.
Approximately 40 percent of
known prairie bush clover sites
are protected as dedicated state
nature preserves, scientific and
natural areas, and preserves
managed by private conserva-
tion organizations such as The
Nature ConseRancy A large
number of prairie bush clover
sites also occur on private lands
where many owners have main-
tained the species through con-
servation-minded agricultural
practices.
More information is contained
in a brochure entitled Prairie
Bus/i Clover: -l Threau’ncd . 1iJ-
western Plant, prepared h ’ the
Minnesota Natural Her taee
Program of the Minnesota
Department of u ural Re our-
ce in cooperation ith the Of-
fice of Endangered Species of
the U.S. Fish and WUdlife Ser-
vice. Copies are available by
calling (612) 296-3344.
Other state agencies responsible
for protecting prairie bush-
clover are the Illinois Natural
Areas Inventor , Illinois Depart-
ment of ConseRation. (217)
7 5-8 774: the Bureau of Pre er-
yes and Ecological Service’ ,
Iowa Department of \atu a
Resources, ( 1 I-4: and
the Bureau of Endangered
Resources, Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Natural Resources,
(608) 267-5037.
:: :
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (H-7506C
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penait for Private Use
S300
FIRST LLAS MAJL
Postage and ees
Paid
EPA Perr’ itG-35
Photo by Nancy Benish
-------
Endangered
Species
Resources
E ndangered species resources are available from EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Endangered
Species Protection Program (1-17506C), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washmgton, DC 20460
Interim Pamphlets
EPA has developed interim pamphlets to
help pesticide users avoid harming local
threat en e4 and endangered species.
Interim pamphlets are available for the
following count ies
Arizona
Cochise Mohave
Coconino Navajo
Gila Pima
Graham Pinal
Maricopa Yavapai
Georgia
Baker Maury
Burke Rabun
Decatur Stephens
Dooly Sumter
Floyd Towns
Cordon Walker
Hambersham Wheeler
Lee Whitfteld
Iowa
Clayton Fayette
Dubuque Jackson
Maryland
Harford
Michigan
Aicona Montmorency
Clare Ogemaw
Crawford Oscoda
losco Presque Isle
Kalkaska Roscommon
Missauke
Mississippi
Bolivar Itawamba
Clairborne Jackson
Copiah Monroe
Hinds Sunflower
New Mexico
North Carolina
Avery
Mitchell
Henderson
North Dakota
‘Benson
McLean
Burke
Mercer
Burleigh
Morton
Divide
Mountrail
Dunn
Oliver
Eddy
Pierce
Emmons
Sheridan
Kidder
Sioux
Logan
Stutsman
McHenry
Ward
Mcintosh
Williams
McKenzie
Oklahoma
LeFlore, McCurtam, Pushmataha
(tn-county)
Oregon
Harney
Wallowa
Tennessee
Anderson
Franklin
Bedford
Cues
Brad ley
Moore
Campbell
Morgan
Carter
Polk
Cumberland
Putnam
Davidson
Rutherford
Fentress
Wilson
Texas
Aransas
Culberson
Austin
El Paso
Colorado
Hudspeth
Virginia
Pulaski
West Virginia
Monongalia
Fact Sheets
EPA is creating a series of fact
sheets to inform the general public
about endangered species Fact
sheets provide historical and scien-
tific inforina tion, describe the
threats to each species, and sum-
marize the efforts being undertaken
to protect them Fact sheets are
now available for the following
endangered species
• Arizona Chffrose
• Attwater’s Prairie
Chicken
• Bald Eagle
• Brady Pmcushion
Cactus
• Chapman’s
Rhododendron
• Flonda Torreya
• Fresno Kangaroo Rat
• Iowa Pleistocene Snail
• Minnesota Trout Lily
• Mississippi Sandlull
Crane
• Navajo Sedge
• Okaloosa Darter
Painted Snake Coiled
Forest Snail
• Peebles Navajo Cactus
• Persistent Trillium
• Piping Plover
• Pondberry
• Prairie Bush-Clover
• Siler Pincushion Cactus
• Tennessee Purple
Coneflower
• Wood Stork
Catron
Chaves
Dona Ana
Eddy
Lincoln
McKinley
Otero
Rio Arriba
San Juan
Sierra
Socorro
3
-------
6EPA
Partners in Flight - Ayes de las Americas
The Water Program Connection
One of today’s most widely discussed conservation
issues is the dramatic dedilne in the populations of
neotropical migratory birds. In response to this
concern, an innovative partnership of public and
private organizations has been established under
the auspices of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation. This new effort, called Partners in
Flight - Ayes de Las Americas and formally known as
the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Program, was launched in 1990, through the
execution of memoranda of agreement among a
number of key federal agencies and conservation
and research organizations. The former include
both land managing agencies such as BLM, the
Forest Service, and DOD and regulatory agencies
such as EPA together with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, which has both roles.
What is the objective of Partners in Flight?
The title of the program, Partners in Flight - Ayes de
las Americas, highlights both the need for
cooperation and the central role of the Latin
American wintering grounds in any strategy to
conserve these species. The objective of this
program is to create the first integrated federaL
state, and private program for research,
monitoring, and habitat management formigratory
nongame birds. The impetus for the program
came from the concern, building for years, for
declines in the populations of rteotropical
migratory birds — species that breed in North
America and winter in Mexico, Central America,
the Caribbean, and South America. The causes of
these declines are complex and not fully
understood, but habitat loss and related problems
are key issues. International efforts will focus on
Canada, a ma jor breeding area, and Mexico, Central
America, and the Caribbean, the major
overwintering grounds. The strategy for this
program is to stimulate cooperative public and
private sector efforts involving public agencies at
all levels, foundations, private organizations, and
businesses in North America and the neotropics.
Some Examples
of Neotropical Migrants*
Peregrine Falcon
Upland Sandpiper
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Common Nighthawk
Chimney Swth
Rufous Hummingbird
Willow flycatcher
Cliff Swallow
House Wren
Swaison’s Thrush
Solitary Vireo
Yellow Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Sunmw Tanager
Blue Grosbeak
Chipping Sparrow
Boblink
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Northern Oriole
* Selected from Pathws in Flight
preliminary list of over 250 spedes.
-------
How can you help?
Because many of these species depend upon
aquatic habitats for some or all of their life func-
tions—and all depend upon clean water for
drinking—water program managers can make a
vital contribution to this effort. Clearly one of the
most direct linkages is through our efforts to protect
coastal resources, wetlands, lakes,stream and river
habitats, and riparian zones. Programs such as the
National Estuary Program, Near Coastal Waters
Program, Section 404 Program, Clean Lakes Pro-
gram, the “Great Water Bodies” programs, and
other watershed protection projects provide in-
portant vehicles to protect both the physical and
chemical integrity of these systems. However,
water program people can also be critical members
of the team through activities involving all facets
of permitting and enforcement, development and
application of criteria and standards, construction
and operation of waste- and stormwater treatment
systems, protection of ground water resources,
monitoring, and water quality planning. Each of
these contributes incrementally to maintaining
the environmental quality necessary to sustain
these populations and species.
For the most part, the best way to help is simply to
continue to do what we do best; that is, managing
aquatic resources in a manner that retains their
integrity and natural functions. However, know!-
edge of the special needs of neotropical migratory
birds is also important In helping to protect or
enhance those aquatic system attributes that are
most critical to supporting such species. One of
the key challenges for program participants is to
collect, analyze, package, and disseminate infor-
mation on these bird species and their manage-
ment needs.
How will Partners in Flight help water
programs?
Looking at this effort from the opposite perspective,
we should realize that Increased interest In bird
conservation will also help us to better marshall
the resources and public support we need to protect
aquatic resources since people have strong
emotional ties to wild birds. Thus, they are more
likely to rally to their protection, with spillover
benefits for water quality and aquatic habitats,
than for some of the less tangible benefits or more
complex and obscure attributes of aquatic systems.
What is the organizational structure of
Partners in Flight?
The program currently operates through four
domestic regional workgroups and five national
groups organized around functional areas
(monitoring, research, legislation, information and
education, and international activities.) A Carib-
bean working group will probably be established
this year. Water program managers and staff at all
levels are encouraged to become familiar with the
program and to participate in appropriate work-
ing groups or activities. For more information on
the program and working groups, contact Peter
StangeL National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
18th and C Streets NW, Washington DC 20240.
Within EPA, we have established an ad hoc work
group to help focus and coordinate EPA efforts on
behalf of the Partners In Flight Program._Mike
Slimak (ORD/OEPER)I Anne Barton (OPPTS/
OPP), and Dave Davis (OW/OWOW) lead the
workgroup arid serve as official members of the
interagency Steering Committee for the Partners
programs. Mike Troyer (ORDICYITRS) serves as
Executive Secretazy of the group and principal
contact with the other agencies and organizations.
EPA Water Program personnel Interested In the
program are encouraged to contact Dave Davis
? FI 260-7166) or Janet Pawluldewlcz (Fl ’S 260-
9 194) for further information or to share ideas.
April1992
Partners in FlighI—Av de Las Amer s
The Water Conrection
‘I
Page 2
-------
United States Pestcides and
Environmental Protection Toxic Substances January 1992
Agency (H7506C)
6EPA Endan 1ei i5ts
States in which the wood sto,*
;s found.
Wood Stork
rrhe wood stork is an endangered species. Endangered species are plants and animals that
I are in immediate danger of becoming extinct. Threatened species are plants and animals
whose numbers are so low that they may become endangered in the near future. Pesticide use is
one of the many factors that can jeopardize the survival of an endangered or threatened species.
To monitor the use of pesticides in the areas where endangered or threatened species live, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Endangered Species Protection
Program.
What Is the Wood • Scientific Name—Mycreria americana
Stork? • Appearance—The wood stork is a large, long-legged bird with a featherless gray head, white
feathers covering most of its body, and black feathers at the tips of its wings and tail.
• Reproduction—Between November and May, the female lays two to five eggs in large nests
constructed in swamps. The eggs hatch after about 30 days, and 9 weeks later the young are
ready to leave the nest.
• Feeding Habits—The stork holds its partially open beak underwater to catch its prey, which
includes fish, insects, small amphibians, reptiles, manimals, and other birds.
• Special Characteristicsr—The stork can fly at high altitudes and can coast for miles on air
currents without flapping its wings, thereby saving energy.
• Range—The stork lives in wetland areas of florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.
How Is the Wood • Habitat Loss—Loss of wetlands in the Southeast has limited the wood stork’s habitat.
Stork Threatened? • Reduced Food Supply—Activities that disturb wetlands, such as canal building, logging,
and recreational activities, reduce the stork’s food supply.
• Pesticides—The use of pesticides in or near aquatic areas can contaminate or further reduce
the stork’s food supply.
Prir,(ed on Recycled Paper
-------
What Is Being
Done to Prevent
Extinction of the
Wood Stork?
What Can IDo to
Help Prevent
Extinction of
Endangered
Species?
How Can I Get
More Information?
• Listing—The wood stork was listed as an endangered species in 1984.
• Recovery Plan—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a recovery plaz
describes the actions considered necessary to conserve this species.
• Research—Information is being gathered on the population dynamics, biology, and
migration of the stork to better understand what will be necessary to save the species.
• Habitat Protection—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies, and local environ-
mental groups are maintaining and improving existing stork feeding areas. State and federal
agencies also are momtonng water development activities to protect the stork’s habitat.
• Reintroduction—Suitable feeding grounds are being identified so that the stork may be
reintroduced into these areas in the future.
• Public Education—The U.S. Fish and WUdlife Service and private organizations are
developing public awareness programs to explain the plight of the wood stork and to link its
survival to the health of wetlands in the United States.
• Read EPA Publications—Read and follow the instructions in the County Bulletins and
Interim Pamphlets issued for your area by EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program.
• Use Pesticides Wisely—Use pesticides sparingly and only when necessary. Always read
pesticide labels carefully and follow directions for use.
• Write—Write to EPA. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or your state fish and game agency
or conservation department to learn more about endangered species.
You can obtain a copy of the recovery plan by writing to:
Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
For additional information on EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program. write to:
The Endangered Species Protection Program (H7506C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
EPA
States in which the Fresno
kangaroo rat is found.
What Is the Fresno
Kangaroo Rat?
How Is the Fresno
Kangaroo Rat
Threatened?
Un ed States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
(H7506C)
January 1992
Endangered Species Facts
Fresno Kangaroo Rat
r’Flhe Fresno kangaroo rat is an endangered species. Endangered species are plants and
1. animals that are in immediate danger of becoming extinct Threatened species are plants
and animals whose numbers are so low that they may become endangered in the near future.
Pesticide use is one of the many factors that can jeopardize the survival of an endangered or
threatened species. To monitor the use of pesticides in the areas where endangered or
threatened species live, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the
Endangered Species Protection Program.
• Scientific Name—Dipodomys nitratoides exilis
• Appearance—The Fresno kangaroo rat has short, stout front legs, long back legs, and a tail
almost as long as i rs 5-inch body with a tuft of fur at its tip. A white stripe runs along each
side of its buff-colored body, and it has a white stomach.
• Reproduction—Breeding generally occurs from Febniary to June, and young are carried for
32 days. Mothers can have more than one litter per year.
• Feeding Habits—The rat forages for food at night and eats seeds, green plants, and insects.
• Special Characteristics—The rat is well adapted to the desert environment in which it lives.
It uses its front legs to dig burrows, its back legs to rapidly hop over the sand, and its efficient
kidneys to compensate for limited water availability.
• Range—The Fresno kangaroo rat lives in central California.
• Habitat Loss—Agricultural development has destroyed much of the Fresno kangaroo rat’s
habitat.
• Competition-Heavy grai.ing by cattle limits food availability for the rat. Competition for
food with other rodents .i!co is a problem.
• Off-Road Vehicles—L’ c “i c Ff-road vehicles in the desert can destroy the rat’s burrows and
otherwise harm its habitat
• Pesticides—Although p ti .iJc ’ have not been identified as a cause for the rat’s population
decline, use of rodentk.IJ s nd other pesticides in surrounding farmlands could harm
remaining individuals.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
What Is Being
Done to Prevent
Extinction of the
Fresno Kangaroo
Rat?
What Can IDo to
Help Prevent
Extinction of
Endangered
Species?
How Can I Get
More Information?
• Listing—The Fresno kangaroo rat was listed as an endangered species in 1985.
• Recovery Plan—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a recovery plan’
describes the actions considered necessary to conserve this species.
• Research—Information about the rat’s biological characteristics and habitat is being
collected to better understand what actions will be necessary to help the species survive.
• Habitat Protection—The State of California is purchasing property with habitat suitable for
this animal. In addition, the use of rodenucides in the rat’s habitat is now prohibited.
• Reintroduction—Scientists axe considering moving some Fresno kangaroo rats to rehabLlitated
areas.
• Read EPA Publications—Read and follow the instructions in the County Bulletins and
Interim Pamphlets issued for your area by EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program.
• Use Pesticides Wisely—Use pesticides sparingly and only when necessary. Always read
pesticide labels carefully and follow directions for use.
• Write—Write to EPA. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or your state fish and game agency
or conservation depamnent to Learn more about endangered species.
You can obtain a copy of the recovery plan by wnting to:
Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
For additional information on EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program, write to:
The Endangered Species Protection Program (H7506C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW.
Washington. DC 20460
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA
Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
H75O6C)
November 1991
Endangered Species Facts
States in which the Attwater’s
prairie chicken is found.
Attwater’s Prairie Chicken
e Attwater’s prairie chicken is an endangered species. Endangered species are plants and
animals that are in immediate danger of becoming extinct. Threatened species are plants
and animals whose numbers are so low that they may become endangered in the near future.
Pesticide use is one of the many factors that can jeopardize the survival of an endangered or
threatened species. To monitor the use of pesticides in the areas where endangered or
threatened species live, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the
Endangered Species Protection Program.
• Scientific Name—T rnpanuchus cupido anwa:eri
What Is the
Attwater’s Prairie
Chicken?
• Appearance—The Att itcr’s prairie chicken’s body is about 14 inches long and is covered
with alternating bands ot light and dark feathers, except for its bare ankles and feet.
• Reproduction—’ 1atin occurs from March through May. Females then make nests and lay
from 8 to 15 eggs. v hic h hitch after 23 or 24 days of incubation.
• Feeding Habits—The bird prefers feeding on green plants (such as ruella, stargrass, and
perennial ragweed). but .d .o cats seeds and insects.
• Special Characteristics— In early spring, males try to attract females by strutting, calling,
and puffing out pouches on their necks. The males gather together to perform this ritual in
areas known as “booming grounds” because of the loud calls made by the males during
courtship.
• Range-The Attwater ; r inc chicken lives in the grasslands of the Gulf Central Prairie in
Texas.
-------
How Is the • Habitat Loss—Expansion of local cities has destroyed much of the bird’s habitat
Attwater’s Prairie • Hunting—Pheasant hunters often accidentally lull the Attwater’s praine chicken because
Chicken resembles the female pheasant.
Threatened? • Competition and Predations—Competition with pheasants and other non-native birds, as
well as predation by wild and domestic animals, has reduced the bird’s numbers.
• Pesticides—Although the impact of pesticides on this species has not been determined.
pesticide use has the potential to affect the Attwater’s prairie chicken.
What Is Being • Listing-The Aitwater’s prairie chicken was listed as an endangered species in 1967.
Done to Prevent • Recovery Plan—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with state wildlife
Extinction of the management agencies, has developed a recovery plan that describes the actions considered
Attwater’s Prairie necessary to conserve this species.
Chicken? • Research—Biologists are studying the bird to determine what its habitat needs are so that
populations can be transplanted to other areas.
• Habitat Protection-The Fish and Wildlife Service regulates activities such as grazing and
mining on federal lands where the Attwater’s prairie chicken lives. Also, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and state environmental agencies are setting aside lands for the bird.
• Public Education—Federal and State conservation agencies have implemented programs to
educate the public about the Attwater’s prairie chicken and its habitat requirements.
• Hunter Education—Federal and state game and wildlife agencies are teaching hunters how
to identify the Attwater’s praine chicken.
What Can I Do to • Read EPA Publications-Read and follow the instructions in the County Bulletins and
Help Prevent Interim Pamphlets issued for your area by EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Prograir
Ext inction of • Use Pesticides Wisely—Use pesticides sparingly and only when necessary. Always
Endangered pesticide labels carefully and follow directions for use.
Species? . Write—Wnte to EPA, the U S. Fish and Wildlife Service, your state fish and game agency or
conservation department to learn more about endangered species.
How Can I Get You can obtain a copy of the recovery plan by writing to:
More Information? Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
For additional information on EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program, write to:
O The Endangered Species Protection Program (H7506C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- 401 M Street, SW.
Washington. DC 20460
-------
Pest,cides and
Toxic Substances
(H7506C)
November 1991
&EPA Endangered Species Facts
States in which the Tennessee
purple cone/lower is found.
What Is the
Tennessee Purple
Conef lower?
How Is the
ennessee Purple
Conef lower
Threatened?
Tennessee Purple
Conef lower
9 he Tennessee purple coneflower is an endangered species. Endangered species are plants
I and animals that are in immediate danger of becoming extinct Threatened species are
plants and animals whose numbers are so low that they may become endangered in the near
future. Pesticide use is one of the many factors that can jeopardize the survival of an en-
dangered or threatened species. To monitor the use of pesticides in the areas where endangered
or threatened species live, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the
Endangered Species Protection Program.
• Scientific Naine—Echinacea :ennesseer&ns
• Appearance—The Tennessee puiple coneflower is a short, woody plant with pinkish-purple
flowers that look like daisies.
• Reproductlon— .The plant flowers from June through October, and each flower produces a
small number of seeds.
• Special Characteristics— ative Americans valued the plant for its numbing effects. It is
now being studied by cancer and AIDS researchers for possible applications in combating
these diseases.
• Range—The flower is found only in the cedar glades of central Tennessee.
• Habitat Loss—Spreading residential and commercial development has destroyed much of
the Tennessee purple cone flower’s habitat.
• Grazing and Mowing—Grazing by domestic and wild animals, as well as field mowing, can
damage the plant.
• Reproductive Characteristics—Since the plant produces few seeds and these are not
dispersed widely, the planL’s population growth is naturally limited.
Un ed States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
What Is Being • Listing—The Tennessee purple coneflower was listed as an endangered species in 1979
Done to Prevent • Recovery Plan—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a recovery plan
Ext inction of the describes the actions considered necessary to conserve this species.
Tennessee Purple • Research—Searches are being conducted to locate new coneflower colonies, and methods
Conef lower? are being developed to remove seeds for establishing new experimental colonies without
hurting the existing colonies
• Habitat Protection—Private landowners with coneflowers on their property have agreed not
to disturb existing colonies Timber management practices that may hurt coneflower colonies
have been prohibited on state-owned lands.
• Reintroduction—State organizations and private individuals are growing the plant and
establishing new colonies on state-owned and private land.
• Public Education—Federal and state conservation agencies are conducting educational cam-
paigns to inform people about the uniqueness and significance of the Tennessee purple cone-
flower.
• Pesticides—Although the impact of pesticides on this species has not been determined,
pesticide use has the potential to affect the Tennessee purple coneflower.
What Can I Do to • Read EPA Publications—Read and follow the instructions in the County Bulletins and
Help Prevent Interim Pamphlets issued for your area by EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program.
Extinction of • Use Pesticides Wisely—Use pesticides sparingly and only when necessary. Always read
Endangered pesticide labels carefully and follow directions for use.
Species? • Write—Write to EPA, the U S. Fish and Wildlife Service, your state fish and game agency or
conservation department to learn more about endangered species.
How Can I Get You can obtain a copy of the recovery plan by writing to:
More Information? Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda. Maryland 20814
For additional information on EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program, wnte to:
O The Endangered Species Protection Program (H7506C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 NI Sirect, SW.
Washington. DC 20460 -
-------
i ’esiiciaes ana
Toxic Substances
(H7506C)
January 1991
0
Endangered Species Facts
Piping Plover
S ome plants and animals listed by the U.S. Fish and ldlife
Service as endangered or threatened can be harmed by the
use of certain pesticides. To help ensure the continued exist-
ence of these species, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy (EPA) will limit the use of certain pesticide products within
the habitat of these species. This action will reduce the
exposure of endangered or threatened species to potentially
harmful pesticides. The piping ployer is a bird for which
EPA may set pesticide limitations.
What Is the Piping Ptover?
The piping plover (scientific name: Charadriz .is mefodus
Ord) is a small, stocky shorebird with sand-colored wings.
white underparts. and orange legs and bill. The adult plover
weighs around 2 ounces and is about 7 inches long. During the
breeding season, distinct black snipes circle its breast arid
forehead, but these are obscure in winter and in young birds.
Plovers eat beetles, grasshoppers, fly Larvae, and spiders in
fields and along rivers and lakes, and marine womis, crus-
lace ans, and clams along beaches. The birds prefer to feed near
the water’s edge.
From March to August, piping plovers breed on wide undis-
turbed beaches, bare sandy islands in rivers, riverbanks, and
salt.encn.isted sandy or pebbly areas along lakes and ponds
The birds appear to need these open. undisturbed areas with
inle plant cover to successfully raise chicks. During their
ireeding season, piping plovers call melodiously, hence ihe
description “piping” and the species name melodus.
Pairs of piping plovers may nest alone or in colonies of up
to 30 pairs, and occasionally nest in colonies of other birds,
such as American avocets or least tems. Both parents incubate
the eggs, sitting on their small, shallow nests lined with small
pebbles or broken shells for about one month, and defend their
territory against inmiders. Within 3 to 4 weeks after hatching,
the young are ready to fly and fend for themselves. Although
each pair lays four eggs in a nest and may nest four ames a
year, many of these chicks die. Often a pair will raise only two
chicks a year and sometimes no chicks live.
Piping plovers breed in three regions of North America:
the Northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada, the Great
Lakes beaches, and the Atlantic coast beaches. In the fall,
the piping plover migrates south, and winters along the Gulf
coast, the southern Atlantic coast from North Carolina to
Florida, and some Caribbean islands.
Historical records show that the birds once nested in 14
states and wintered in 5; today piping plovers breed in only 8
states, and in all instances, the number of breeding pairs has
decreased and the birds are found in fewer locations. Presently,
only 4,300 to 4,450 piping plovers nest in North America. A
1986 survey found 2,700 to 2,850 in the northern Great Plains.
and only 17 breeding pairs along tbe shores of the Great Lakes.
How Is the Piping Plover Threatened?
Habitat loss on both breeding and wintering grounds
senously threatens the plover. The plovers nest in habitat
that cart be destroyed easily by flooding and erosion.
AU three populations of piping plover that breed in North Ainenca arc hsted under the Endangered Species Act This fact sheet describes
only the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains populations.
unnea tates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Prvnredon Recycled Paper
-------
Because of this, the birds are susceptible to frequent nest
destructiOn, and, consequently, have very low breeding
success.
The plovers also face development pressures on both breed-
ing and wintering grounds as rivers and beaches are increas-
ingly used as sites for recreational activities, homes, or
industnes. Reservoirs. river channeling, and water-flow con-
trol measures have eliminated many sandbars in the Missoun
and Platte Rivers, the main river systems used as breeding areas
by piping plovers. These measures cause unnatural water flows
that can flood nests when water levels are high. If water levels
are kept low for long periods of time, riverbanks can become
unsuitable for nesting because of encroaching vegetation.
Management techniques that keep sandbars or barrier islands
from washing away also encourage plant growth and make
these areas unsuitable for nesting.
Plovers are sensitive to the presence of people and are easily
scared off their nests, increasing the chances for predators
(such as gulls, skunks, foxes, dogs, or cats) to attack the
nestlings, or for the young to be separated from their parents.
When people or other animals such as cattle walk through the
plover’s nesting areas, they can trample the nests, eggs, arid
chicks. Vehicles driving through the nesting areas also can
crush nests.
Piping plovers can be harmed by pesticides either through
direct contact or by eating contaminated insects or drinking
contaminated water. Young plovers can absorb pesticides
through their skin before they grow feathers, and both young
and adult birds can ingest pesticides from preening con-
taminated feathers. Also, pesticides can kill many of the insects
that the plovers feed on, so that they might not have enough
food.
Other human activities that can hann the plovers include oil
spills and mining. Oil spills can kill birds, but do not appear to
be a major threat to the population. Mining can both help arid
harm the plover in that spoil piles create resting habitat, but
these piles are often disturbed by people or machines during
the breeding season, resulting in the loss of some of the young
raised there.
What Is Being Done to Prevent Extinction of the
Piping Plover?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) officially listed
the piping ploverunder the Endangered Species Act on Deccm -
her 11, 1985. The Northern Great Plains and Atlantic coast
populations are listed as “threatened,” while the Great Likes
population is listed as “endangered.” FWS then began working
with other government and private agencies to develop a
recovery plan for the species. Recovery goals include a 70
percent increase in the Great Plains population and a tenfold
increase in the Great Lakes population. These levels must then
be maintained for 15 years.
The recovery plan identifies actions necessary to prevent
extinction of the piping plover and to reach recovery goals
Priorities for the Great Lakes region are controlling predators
and restricting human and vehicular access to breeding sites
The priority for the Northern Great Plains is bettermanagement
of water flow on the Missouri and Platte Rivers. In both are v
careful management and protection of breeding habitat is
portant. Protective measures include controlling human acc
to nesting areas, reducing predation, limiting residential arid
industrial development, and managing water flow to minimize
the destruction of nests. Scientists will continue to attempt to
make some areas more attractive to nesting pairs. Also EPA is
considering limiting the use of certain pesticides in breeding
and wintering areas.
Many states and private agencies have run successful public
information campaigns to raise awareness of the plover’s
plight. Public support for their conservation is generally strong,
and many encouraging efforts are underway to aid the plover’s
recovery.
Several cooperative research groups have been setup among
federal and state agencies, university and private research
centers, and the Canadian Wildlife Service. A major effort is
planned in 1991 to survey the bird across its entire range,
including the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Carib-
bean. This will enable scientists to determine where plovers are
breeding and wintering, estimate numbers, and monitor long-
term changes in the population.
Scientists also plan to conduct additional research on habitat
and food requirements and factors that contribute to low breed-
ing success. Since the birds spend 7 months of the year along
migration routes and on wintering habitat, a greater under-
standing of their movement patterns, distribution, and hal
requirements in these areas is important to ensure their
vival.
Because the piping plover breeds and winters in several
countries, its preservation requires an international effort
Canada’s Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife lists
the plover as endangered, and the Canadian Wildlife Service
has developed a recovery plan that will complement U.S.
efforts. The efforts of federal, state, and private agencies, and
the support shown by the public, can do much to save the piping
plover from extinction.
How Can I Obtain Additional Information?
To obtain copies of the recovery plan for the piping plover,
contact
Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
For additional information on EPA’s Endangered Species
Protection Program, contact:
The Endangered Species Protection
Program (H7506C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 MStreet,SW.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
UMed States
Env ronmentaI Protection
Agency
Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
(H7506C)
EPA
Endangered Species Facts
Snail Darter
S ome plants and animals listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as endangered or threatened can be
harmed by the use of certain pesticides. To help ensure
the continued existence of these species, the U S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will limit the
use of certain pesticide products within the habitat of
these species. This action will reduce the exposure of
endangered or threatened species to potentially harmful
pesticides. The snail darter is a threatened fish for which
EPA may set pesticide limitations.
What Is the Snail Darter?
The snail darter (scientific nan : Percina rana.sl) is a
small fish that was discovered in August 1973 in the Little
Tennessee River and is found only in Loudon County,
Tennessee. The top part of the snail darter is brown with
occasional traces of green, and four dark brown “saddles”
can be found behind its top (dorsal) fin. The sides of the
fish are a lighter brown with dark blotches and the fish’s
belly is white.
Adult snail darters live in the shallow parts of streams
and rivers, where water moves relatively swiftly and is
cool and clear. The darter prefers waterways that has. e i
gravel bottom. Snails form the bulk of the darter’s Wct.
but the fish also eats water insects.
The snail darter spawns from mid-winter through mid-
spring. The eggs hatch within 18 to 20 days and the
young fish (called fry) drift with the water current to
nursery areas downstream. After about 5 to 7 months. he
young darters begin to migrate back to the upstream
spawning areas where they spend the rest of their Ii e c
The maximum life span for the snail darter is estimated
to be 4 years.
The snail darter is famous for almost stopping the
construction of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Tellico Dam and Reservoir Project on the Little Ten-
nessee River. Construction of this dam began in 1967 and
was partially completed when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service listed the snail darter as endangered on October
9, 1975. A citizens’ group filed suit against the TVA to
halt construction on the grounds that further construction
would violate the Endangered Species Act by destroying
the only known habitat of the snail darter.
The case was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court which
agreed that the Tellico Dam project violated the En-
dangered Species Act. However, the Court also recog-
nized the conflict between the Act and necessary water
control projects and stated that Congress must resolve
such conflicts as they occur. In the case of the snail darter,
Congress decided that the Tellico Project was exempt
from the Endangered Species Act and the project could
continue. This decision also meant that the snail darter
would be eliminated from the Utile Tennessee River.
Before its original habitat was destroyed, some of the
darters from the Little Tennessee River were transplanted
to several nearby streams. Those fish transplanted to the
Fliwassee River appear to be surviving. Since 1979,
several small groups of the fish were found in other
streams, adding to the entire population of the snail darter.
However, even though its numbers have increased, the
snail darter’s existence is still threatened.
How Is the Snail Darter Threatened?
Because the overall number of snail darters is very
nut I, the death of even a few could deplete the popula-
on beyond recovery and the species would become
January 1991
-------
extinct. Water pollution, river dredging, or development
can all threaten snail darter survival. For example, the
snail darter lives in the Chickamauga River, which has a
long history of pollution problems from industrial and
sewage wastes that result in frequent fish kills.
River dredging presents another threat since it removes
gravel that both supports animals the darter feeds on and
provides a spawning area for the fish. The snail darter
survives best in clear water, but construction near rivers
or streams may make the water muddy. Finally, because
so few snail darters exist, collectors may want to add the
fish to their collections before it becomes extinct, shrink-
ing the natural population even further. Because the ex-
istence of the snail darter is already precarious, such
threats could easily destroy the species.
What Is Being Done to Prevent the Extinction
of the Snail Darter?
The snail darter was originally classified as endangered
because it was believed that the Tellico Dam project
would eliminate the species. After the fish was
transplanted and other snail darters were discovered
living naturally in other streams, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) reclassified the fish as
threatened. The snail darter was not removed entirely
from the endangered or threatened species list because of
the vulnerability of its habitat. The snail darter sail
receives the sa amount of protection as it did when
considered endangered, but more people can receive per-
nuts from FWS to collect the fish.
FWS has prepared a recovery plan that outlines how
the snail darter habitat should be managed to protect and
increase the numbers of the fish. One of the suggested
steps is to inventory the area’s streams to find other snail
darters and to determine how well those fish are surviving
and reproducing. If possible, biologists may change the
snail darter’s habitat to improve the fish’s ability to live
there.
The recovery plan also suggests that present
foreseeable threats to the snail darter be determined and
minimized or eliminated. For example, organizations pol-
luting the area’s streams and rivers may be asked to reduce
their wastes to protect the darter and other wildlife.
Also, FWS must make sure that there are no proposed
or planned projects that could adversely impact the fish.
This step is very dependent on the support of local busi-
ness communities and governments that have a direct
impact on the snail darter habitat. As biologists learn more
about the fish and parts of the streams that it prefers, they
can inform developers who may then try to avoid these
special areas. In addition, through the help of EPA, the
use of any pesticides that may harm the snail darter could
be limited in the fish’s habitat.
How Can I Obtain Additional Information?
To obtain copies of the recovery plan for the snail
darter, contact:
Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
For additional information on EPA’s Endangered
Species Protection Program, contact:
The Endangered Species Protection
Program (H7506C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4.01 MStreet,SW.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
esuaoes ano
Toxic Substances
(H7506C)
December 1990
6EPA
Endangered Species Facts
Painted Snake Coiled Forest Snail
Come plants and aiümais listed by the U.S. Fish and
3Wild1ife Service as endangered or threatened can be
harmed by the use of certain pesticides. To help ensure the
continued existence of these species, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) will limit the use of certain pes-
ticide products within the habitat of these species. This action
will reduce the exposure of endangered or threatened species
to potentially harmful pesticides. The painted snake coiled
forest snail is a threatened animal for which EPA may set
pesticide limitations.
What Is the Painted Snake Coiled Forest Snail?
The painted snake coiled forest snail (scientific name:
Anguispirapicra) is a small, dome-shaped land snail, with
a shell approximately two-thirds of an inch in diameter
and one-third of an inch high. The painted snake coiled
orest snail can be distinguished from other land snails by
the irregular chocolate blotches on the top and indistinct
flame-shaped markings on the underside of its cream-
colored shell. The edge of the shell is smooth and white.
The snail lives on moist limestone rocks and in crevices
in a single cove in southern Tennessee, at elevations
between 750 and 930 feet. The snail needs a humid
environment and dense forest cover to survive. The
snail’s specialized habitat requirements limit its total
habitat to a mere 325 acres.
Biologists know very little about the snail’s ecology,
population dynamics, and life cycle. The snails seem to
be more active after a rain, at night, or in cooler weather.
They may become dormant, or inactive, when the weather
remains dry for long periods of time. Biologists think that
the snails eat lichens growing on the limestone and that,
in turn, the snails may be eaten by small mammals,
beetles, and beetle larvae. The total number of individual
painted snake coiled forest snails is uncertain but may
range from 2,000 to 20,000.
Biologists know little about how the painted snake
coiled forest snail reproduces, but they do know that
related species of land snail lay their eggs in the soil and
ach maturity 2 to 3 years after hatching. Although
everely restricted by specialized habitat requirements,
the snail appears to be reproducing in undisturbed areas,
as biologists have found both young and old snails living
in some parts of the cove.
Restriction to a single location, loss of habitat, and
overcollection are the major threats to the painted snake
coiled forest snail. Any species limited to a single location
is particularly vulnerable if natural or human disturbance
of its habitat occurs. A major forest fire or extensive
grazing, logging, or limestone quarrying in the area could
completely destroy the population and therefore the
species. If there were other populations of the snail, its
chances for survival would be more secure.
Logging and grazing degrade the snail’s habitat by
removing plants, thus m2king the habitat too dry. Some
parts of the cove where the snail lives were logged or
grazed in the past if this is resumed, additional critical
habitat could be lost, and snails that now live in these
areas may die. In addition, quarrying, which is prevalent
in southern Tennessee, threatens all the remaining snails,
as this activity would destroy the limestone outcrops on
which they live.
United staies
Environmental Protection
Agency
How Is the Painted Snake Coiled Forest Snail
Threatened?
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Shell collectors eager to have a rare specimen of the
painted snake coiled forest snail also threaten the species.
Because so few snails are left, collecting even a small
number could pose a significant threat to the population.
What Is Being Done to Prevent Extinction of the
Painted Snake Coiled Forest Snail?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially listed the
painted snake coiled forest snail as threatened on July 3,
1978, and began developing a recovery plan for the
species. Since a single cove harbors the only known
population of the snail, protection of this cove from
further disturbance is essential. The recovery plan at-
tempts to ensure this protection and also calls for popula-
tion monitoring and restrictions on collecting. These
restrictions will apply to both scientific and amateur
collecting.
To help protect the snail from harmful exposure to
pesticides, EPA will assess the impact of pesticides on the
snail and will place limitations on those that may harm
this species either directly or through modification of the
habitat on which it depends.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, The Nature
Conservancy, and the Fish and Wildlife Service hope to
either obtain a conservation agreement with area land-
owners or actually acquire land to protect the snail’s
habitat. The cove spans four important land parcels.
Mineral rights to one large parcel of land were sold to a
private party in 1982. The three agencies will attempt to
forestall any exploration or quarrying of this parcel.
Trees were harvested on another parcel about 15 years
ago. Although resumption of logging does not appear to
be imminent, a conservation agreement or land acquisi-
tion would prevent further logging. Up until now, the
family owning the parcel containing most of the cove has
protected the snail’s habitat by not allowing quarrying or
logging. However, until a written conservation agreement
is signed, the habitat won’t be considered completely safe
from logging or quarrying activities.
Biologists are conducting surveys as part of the
recovery plan to provide information on changes in the
population. They plan to continue monitoring total n’
bers and population fluctuations to discern any signifi
drop in population. Scientists will also look for new
populations of the snail. If other populations are dis-
covered, not only would this add to the total known
numbers of the snail, but any destruction of the snail’s
habitat would endanger only one population of the snail,
not the entire species.
To fully protect the species, biologists also need infor-
mation on reproduction, behavior, food and habitat re-
quirements, natural threats such as predation and climate
change, and competition with other species of snails. The
painted snake coiled forest snail is part of a widespread
family of snails, some of which also live in the cove.
Understanding what makes other snails succeed would
help scientists manage the existing populations of the
painted snake coiled forest snail to ensure that the species
does not become extinct
How Can I Obtain Additional Information?
To obtain copies of the recovery plan for the painted
snake coiled forest snail, contact:
Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
For additional information on EPA’s
Species Protection Program, contact:
Endangered
The Endangered Species
Program (H7506C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 MStreet,SW.
Washington, DC 20460
Pro te c ti on
-------
Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
H7506C)
January 1992
6EPA
Endangered Species Facts
e Arizona diffro s an endangered species. Endangered species are plants and animals
that are in irnmedijte danger of becoming extinct. Threatened species are plants and
animals whose numbers ire so low that they may become endangered in the near future.
Pesticide use is one o .he many factors that can jeopardize the survival of an endangered or
threatened species. To monitor the use of pesticides in the areas where endangered or
threatened species live, c U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the
Endangered Species Proe :: n Program.
What Is the
Arizona Cliftrose?
• Scientific Name—Cu nia b ntegra
• Appearance—The Anic’na LlLffrose is a low, evergreen shrub that stands up to 3 feet high. It
has gray, shredded bark. ‘irrow, fuzzy leaves that are green on top and white underneath; and
yellow or white flowers
• Reproduction—The c1i :rr.c rproduces from seeds that are fonned by its flowers.
• Special Characteristics- i ’c . nt an live in very dry, sandy soils.
• Range—The plant gro’ r ‘e northern edge of the Sonoran Desert in Arizona.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
States in which the Arizona
cliffrose is found.
Arizona Cliff rose
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
How Is the Arizona
Cliflrose
Threatened?
What Is Being
Done to Prevent
Extinction of the
Arizona Cliff rose?
What Can IDo to
Help Prevent
Extinction of
Endangered
Species?
How Can I Get
More Information?
• Grazing__Grazing by domestic livestock and wildlife can harm the Arizona cliffrose. Young
seedlings and flowers are particularly susceptible to grazing.
• Construction and Mining—Highway construction and upkeep, maintenance of gas pipe.
and high-voltage powerlines, and mining activities can damage or uproot the plant.
• Off-Road Vehicles—The use of off-road vehicles in the cliffrose’s habitat can hami the
plant.
• Herbicides—The use of herbicides to improve grazing lands, or to remove vegetation from
tights-of-way, may threaten the plant.
• Inbreeding—lnbreeding is occurring as the population declines. Weak seeds and plants are
produced more frequently because of inbreeding.
• Listing—The Arizona cliffrose was listed as an endangered species in 1984.
• Recovery Plan—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a recovery plan that
describes the actions considered necessaiy to conserve this species.
• Research—Scientists are studying the lifecycle, habitat, and ecological requirements of the
Arizona diffrose to determine ways to help protect the plant
• Habitat Protection—The Fish and Wildlife Service has developed plans to protect the plant
on federal lands. Federal and state laws that regulate mining, grazing, and off-road vehicle
use also are being enforced to protect the plant.
• Public Education-The Fish and Wildlife Service is producing educational publications
describing the wildflower and informing the public on how it can be protected.
• Read EPA Publications—Read and follow the instructions in the County Bulletins
Interim Pamphlets issued for your area by EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Progran
• Use Pesticides Wisely—Use pesticides sparingly and only when necessary. Always read
pesticide labels carefully and follow directions for use.
• Write—Write to EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or your state fish and game agency
or conservation department to learn more about endangered species.
You can obtain a copy of the recovery plan by writing to:
Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
For additional information on EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program, write to:
The Endangered Species Protection Program (H7506C)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
United States
Environrnerflai Protection
Agency
Pesliodes and
Toxic Substances
(H7506C)
&EPA
Endangered Species Facts
Bald Eagle
Some plants and animals listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as endangered or threatened can be
harmed by the use of certain pesticides. To help ensure
the continued existence of these species, the U.S. En-
v ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) will limit the use
of certain pesticide products within the habitat of the
species. This action will reduce the exposure of en-
dangered or threatened species to potentially harmful
pesticides. The bald eagle is an endangered bird for
which EPA may set pesticide limitations.
What Is the Bald Eagle?
The bald eagle (scientific name: Ha!iaeetus
leucocephalus) is well known as the national bird and a
symbol of the United States, appearing on currency,
federal seals, and official documents. Although most
people are familiar with the appearance of this 2 1i2- to
4-foot long dark brown bird with white head and tail, few
have seen one m the wild. The bald eagle formerly lived
throughout North America, but it now nests primanly in
Alaska, Canada, the Pacific Northwest, the Great Lakes,
Florida, and Chesapeake Bay. The bald eagle prefers
coasts, rivers, large lakes, and extensive marshlands. In
winter, its range may extend further inland and include some
mountainous areas.
Bald eagles generally nest in the same area year after
year and may even use the same nest, repairing it and
adding new materials for reinforeement. Usually, an
eagle will choose one of the largest irees in a territory for
nesting. The tree must not only support the nest, which
may be as large as 5 feet in diameter, but also offer a view
of potential feeding areas. Eagles also require a large
territory, so nests axe often built a mile or more apart. In
a stable population, an average of one eaglet is raised by
a pair of eagles each year.
Eagles feed primarily on fish and waterfowl, but may
eat rabbits and other small mammals, especially during
migration or in winter, when water is frozen over. Rely-
ing on scavenging for much of their food, eagles also
occasionally eat deer and other big game carrion, as well
as ducks and geese that are crippled or dying from gun-
shot wounds.
What Threatens the Bald Eagle?
Loss of habitat is the biggest long-term threat to bald
eagle populations throughout the United States. Because
these birds need such large territories to breed successful-
ly, human activities, including agriculture, logging, mm-
ing, and urban development, have seriously depleted
potential habitat. Shooting has been a frequently
recorded cause of death among bald eagles. Despite the
eagle’s prestige as a national symbol, hunters and farmers
often shoot the birds because they consider them threats
to livestock or game. However, eagles rarely, if ever,
attack healthy livestock or big game. Between 1978 and
1981, l9percentofdeadcaglesexaminednauonwide had
been killed by gunshot wounds.
Environmental contaminants also pose a major threat
to the bald eagle. Pesticides, particularly
dichiorodiphenyl trichioroethane (DDT) and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), can prevent eagles
from reproducing by causing their eggshells to be so thin
that they break before the young are hatched. Since the
December 1990
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
early 1970s, when the use of DDT and similar pesticides
was stopped, reproductive rates in some populations have
improved. Other pesticides, however, are still found in
dangerous levels in eagles in many areas. The bald eagle
is also susceptible to lead poisoning since a significant
part of its diet can consist of waterfowl injured or killed
by lead shot. Pest contiol programs that use cyamde and
strychnine to eliminate ground squirrels or other main-
mals from rangelands often indirectly affect the bald
eagle as well. When eagles scavenge on these carcasses,
they too are poisoned.
Other causes of bald eagle deaths include accidental
trapping, entanglement in fishing lines, collisions with
aircraft, and electrocution. Eagles may be electrocuted
when they collide with electrical power or distribution
lines; young birds that have not developed their flight
skills are especially vulnerable.
What Is Being Done to Prevent Extinction of the Bald
Eagle?
The bald eagle was first protected under the 1940 Bald
Eagle Protection Act, and has since received protection
under many state laws. In 1967, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) listed the Southern bald eagle as
anendangeredspeciesandonFebruary 14,1978, the bald
eagle was listed as endangered or threatened in the con-
terrninous United States, except in Washington, Oregon,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, where it is is listed
as threatened.
Recovery plans have been developed for five regions
of the United States identified as recovery areas: the
Pacific States, the Southeast, the Southwest, the Northern
States, and Chesapeake Bay. The goal of each recovery
plan is to increase the bald eagle population within states
where it is endangered to levels at which its status can be
considered threatened.
The greatest single focus of recovery efforts is to
identify and preserve habitat essential for bald eagle
breeding, roosting, and foraging. FWS is mapping and
monitoring current bald eagle nesting sites and evaluating
potential habitat for land acquisition. In conjunction
with the U.S. Forest Service, FWS has also wmtcn
guidelines for bald eagle nesting habitat, which have been
implemented in umber management programs by umber
companies and the Bureau of Land Management. These
guidelines discuss the features of critical habitat areas,
including the types of trees eagles need for nesting and
perching, so that timber harvesters will not disturb these
areas. In addition, private orgpnizations have intervencd
to purchase land where specific populations have been
threatened.
Many steps are being taken to reduce direct threats to
bald eagle populations. Federal and sta te agencies have
increased enforcement of existing regulations against
lulling eagles or disturbing eagle nests. For information
leading to the conviction of persons who have shot ea
the National Wildlife Federation offers a $500 rewarL
addition, specific groups, such as the Glacier Natural
History Association, have instituted “crime stopper’
programs to reduce poaching and prosecute violators.
Electrical companies also have taken steps to enforce
suggested guidelines for raptor protection on their dis-
tribution lines, and to study the impacts of power line
coffisions on eagles and other birds of prey. Recent
research into the birds’ diet and behaviors have also
helped to determine the effects of pesticides and other
contaminants on eagles. With the aim of resu-icung harm-
ful contaminants, EPA regularly provides data to FWS
regarding chemicals’ potential risk to the bald eagle.
Efforts to inform the public about bald eagle conserva-
tion and natural history have been widespread and are an
integral part of the recovery program. State and federal
resource management agencies and local conservation
organizations have prepared fact sheets, posters,
brochures, slide and lecture programs for schools, and
radio and television announcements. National
newspapers also have published articles about important
eagle populations.
In addition to educating the general public, fed il
and local agencies have geared materials to hui
landowners, and other groups who may have a dixcct
impact on eagle populations or habitat. In a pairing of
wildlife conservation with conservation of the nation’s
heritage, National Bald Eagle Day was declared on June
20, 1982. On this date 200 years ago, the bird was
officially designated as the country’s national symbol.
How Can I Obtain Additional Information?
To obtain copies of the recovery plan for the bald eagle,
contact
Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
For additional information on EPA’s
Species Protection Program, contact:
Endangered
The Endangered Species
Program (H7506C)
U.S. Environxnenw’ ?rotection Agency
401 MStreet,SW.
Washington, DC 20460
Protection
-------
5
-------
hew from USDA
Farms only five miles apart may need different solutions.
by James A. Moseley
W hat do ou get whet you put a
NASA space scientist. a soil
scientist and a Mississippi catfish
farmer in the same room You get an
example of how American farmers and
ranchers are working diligently to
protect and improve our nations water
supply
Truman Roberts. a catfish farmer
from southern Mississippi. wanted to
find a better way to filter nutrients and
waste from his catfish ponds. He
turned to a scientist from NASA who
had been using plant roots to filter and
treat wastewater generated during
space travel and to a Soil Conservation
‘ervice SCS) scientist. who knew how
.0 build a filtering system that would
accommodate the local Mississippi soil
and water conditions. Together.
working with Roberts. they constructed
a wetland to serve as a catfish pond
filtering system.
Roberts and the scientists agree the
filter works. The wetland system has
improved water quality, increased fish
production. improved fish flavor.
reduced disease. increased wildlife
habitat. and saved ground water.
money. and energy. It s been so
successful he is planning to build four
more to take care of his entire 60 acres
of catf:sh ponds
This is ust one illustration of the
innovations the L’ S Department of
\griculture IL’SDA and agricultural
producers are using to im rove the
quality of our rations water Its also a
good e ample it how farmers and
ranchers are voluntarily incorporating
soil and water resource management
practices into their operations.
Agricultural producers share the
Moselev is Assistant Secretary of
.Agr cuItur or .\atural Resources and
ErR iron ment
nation’s concern for the quality of our
natural resources. No other segment of
our society has a more direct and
dependent relationship with the
environment than farmers and
ranchers. Producers understand they
have a special responsibility to protect
our water supply from pollution that
may occur because of particular
agricultural production practices.
Farmers and ranchers have not gone
out and deliberately damaged the
environment for the sake of improving
their farm income. If environmental
damage has occurred. it has happened
because of lack of knowledge of the
problem and counterproductive L ’S.
farm policy.
Although ground-water
contamination from agricultural
chemicals and fertilizers is not a
serious health threat. when the USDA
and the industry hear of an
agricultural water quality problem. t
taken seriously.
nalyzing soil for nitrogen content helps determine the amount of
fertilizer needed.
USDA and its agencies lAgricultura
-------
THE ISSUES AND THE PQ1KL
Stabilization and Conservation Service,
)iI Conservation Service. Agricultural
£ esearch Service, Cooperative State
Research Service, and the Extension
Service), working in partnership with
agricultural producers. are aggressively
attacking water quality issues through
research. education, technical
assistance, and cost-sharing programs.
The major purpose of LSDA’s water
quality programs is to provide
producers with the information
necessary to voluntarily adopt
improved, environmentally sound
management practices that do not
sacrifice farm profitability. Two key
principles guide the Department in
developing these programs: Conduct
state-of-the-art scientific research and
develop effective farm policy and
programs that can practically be used
by farmers and ranchers.
Agricultural nonpoint-source
pollution is best treated by modifying
farm practices that may potentially
threaten natural resources. L T SDA
research efforts for managing nonpoint
problems are focused on “source
eduction.” Regardless of what the
ource’ is—chemical applications.
,ertilizers, or animal waste—USDA
research strategies center on
developing and improving
cost-effective crop and animal
production technologies that reduce
the contamination source.
Significant progress is being made in
reducing potential agricultural
contamination sources. One promising
development in control ng agricultural
nutrients from entering ground and
surface water is nutrient management
programs.
Precise measurement of nutrient
content and prescription application is
becoming standard operating
procedure on farms all across the
country In managing animal waste
and fertilizer applications, farmers are
paying special attention to calibration
rates in an effort to apply only what is
required of a crop for growth in
specific crop cycle. This is especially
important with nitrogen because
excess free nitrogen unused by a crop
can move off site or into ground water.
In the Chesapeake basin three-state
area (Pennsylvania. Virginia. and
Maryland). over 114.000 acres are
currently covered by nutrient
management plans. Since the statewide
management plans have been
incorporated into the farming
operations. 1.797 tons of nitrogen ar
2.006 tons of phosphorus have bet
prevented tram entering the ba
Fertilizer sales in the three bay iie
have decreased by . 4 percent. wrliie
nationally sale ot terti1 zers nj ‘
droppea by lb percent
\ew technology is being deveiop i
that will measure soil productivit’. .ini
calibrate fert: . izer rar at n pc.
application according to tIm oii
productivity This technologicai
breakthrougn will increas# nutrient
consumption by the crops ano iU,è
the potential for leaching or runtlt ot
the plant food,
Computers. e:ectronics. and sa:t
are being integrated into farm
equipment for more precise me
of inputs. In \fissouri. three rcr. r
cooperatives are experimentm on
10.000 acres of cropland wttr 1
truck-mounted computers. lasers
infrared photographs’. and soil tests to
precisely apply only the amount of
nutrients and herbicides needeu as ‘ne
truck moves across the field Very
or no excess chemicals remain for
leaching to ground cvater or caving
field in surface runoff
\l’ . ou ‘arrne’ .ir ’
experimenting rn comou(er.
generated io,i arroin r.’ci)
to de?e m,re .orec e
In a cor Cu—
aboard a ‘err’ ‘ze’
ensure ‘ “- : S
distributed nroner
SCS photo
-------
‘Prescription farming is so popular
ith the local Iissouri farmers that
they have more than 30 000 additional
acres ready for application as soon as
the experiment is completed Sixty
more experimental truck-mounted
systems are operating on more than
500.000 acres across the countr
U S farm policy also pla s a major
role in determining what t pe of
agricultural practices producers use in
their business These production
practices can have significant impact
on water quality
Congress recognized this
policy-practice interrelation and forged
a new era in American agricultural
polic in the 1985 and 1990 Farm
Bills For the first time in the history
of U S farm policy, farmers had to
meet environmental standards in order
to qualify for farm program benefits
Under the Conservation Reserve
Program (CR?). highly erodible land is
being planted to grasses and trees.
reducing chemical use and the
potential for chemical leaching and
sedimentation from soil erosion
Since the first signup in 1986.
armers have enrolled approximately
35 6 million acres in the program. and
the expected water quality benefits are
significant A reduction in soil loss of
655 million tons annually resulted in a
210-million-ton annual reduction in
sediment loadings to water bodies The
CR? also will reduce herbicide and
pesticide usage by an estimated 61
million pounds annually, and a 2 4
million tons annual reduction in
fertilizer use
A key component of most
conser ation compliance plans is
conservation tillage and crop residue
management USDA scientists know
that conservation tLllage can provide a
significant impact on improving water
qualii in our streams and lakes The
.oncept is simple Keep the water on
the land and you reduce the
opportunity to mote soil and nutrients
to the drainage s stem
Conser ation tillage s stems can also
provide producers with an economic
advantage In m own personal
experience as a farmer in Indiana. we
cut our cost of production by 18 cents
er bushel when we switched from a
traditional tillage method to a
ndge-tillage system We not only
improved our soil and water resources
with the new tillage system, but
improved crop yields as well
When both conservation compliance
and the CR? are fully implemented.
SCS estimates the cropland erosion
rate in the United States will be
reduced by 45 to 50 percent. providing
significant water quality benefits
The challenge in the future for
USDA. the agriculture industry, and
At a CWA hearing held this
past summer, the first
question asked by a
committee member to the
agriculture industry witnesses
was, “Tell us why agriculture
should not be regulated?”
policy makers will be to continue to
find ways to integrate environmental
and agricultural goals in policy and
programs that enhance our nations
environmental and economic
opportunities
The upcoming reauthorization of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) is the next
major challenge for policy makers to
try to integrate these environmental
and economic goals Nonpoint-source
contamination horn agriculture will be
a main issue in this reauthorization
process At a CWA hearing held this
past summer, the first question asked
by a committee member to the
agriculture industry witnesses was.
‘Tell us why agriculture should not be
regulated?”
There are two main schools of
thought on how to deal with
agricultural nonpoint sources of
contamination One emphasizes the
adoption of regulations on the use of
contaminants The other focuses on the
voluntary adoption by farmers of
production practices that are both
environmentally sound and
cost-effective for producers.
USDA’s 130 years experience
working with farmers and ranchers
supports the philosophy that voluntary
action through education is more
effective than regulation in addressing
our environmental issues. Prohibiting
the use of certain chemicals and
policing and fining polluters is not the
best way to deal with water quaI’t
concerns, particularly in a di%ersitied
industry such as agriculture
Effective water quality management
practices are dynamic for e er farm
and ranch in this country Two farms
located within five miles of each other
can have dramatically different %ater
quality plans The goals of these plans
are the same. but the conditions on
each farm demand different solutiori
Regulations undermine agriculture
flexibility in determining production
options And flexibility is critical to
agriculture s economic stabilit
Regulations will increase the cost ot
agricultural production and put tarm
operators who cannot absorb the addeci
costs out of business
American producers are committed
to taking care of the water qualit
problems attributed to agriculture \
recent study in Big Spring Basin n
Iowa reiterates USDA’s long standing
philosophy that a voluntars
cooperative approach between
government agencies and farmers can
produce effective results On a
volunteer basis. through education and
demonstrations conducted in
cooperation with USDA 200 farmers
cut their nitrogen use from U ’4 pounds
per acre in 1981 to 138 pounds per
acre in 1989 Corn ‘,ields ere not
adversely affected
American agriculture is the most
productive in the world, not because
of government intervention but rather
because the partnership between the
USDA and American agriculture as
allowed to flourish USDA prot ides
the research, technology and
education and producers appl this
knowledge to the land That same
system. given the opportunity can
solve our environmental needs as
well :
-------
\ / y perspective on curbing
I V I agricultural nonpoint-source
pollution is that of a farmer—
• A farmer who lives by the
philosophy that every producer and
land owner has the duty and the moral
obligation to use the best soil- and
water-conservation technology
available
• A farmer who believes that good
environmental decisions and good
business decisions are compatible
• A farmer who, for the past 35 years,
helped pioneer “conservation tillage,”
the practice of maximizing the crop
residue you leave as a protective
mulch on the surface of a field instead
of plowing it under
available to help with a range of
environmental concerns But
conservation tillage. in my opinion
should be the technology considered
first for soil erosion control and water
quality protection In conser ation
tillage. the residue of husks, stems
and leaves covers the soil surface
protecting it from wind and the impact
of raindrops The more residue ou
have, the less runoff—and the less
chance that surface water will be
polluted by sediment and by nutrients
or pesticides adhering to soil particles
This basic concept of crop residue
management is beautifully simple and
you find it used in home gardens But
on the large scale of production
agriculture, the technology is complex
Intensive management is the key
For example, the amount of residue
cover needed to reduce soil erosion to
acceptable levels depends primarik on
the type of soil, the slope of the
ground, the kinds of crops gro n on a
field and their order in the crop
“rotation.” and the tillage systems a
equipment used
Fortunately. conservation tillage is a
flexible technology that allows the
farmer to balance market decisions
with environmental decisions One
way of leaving more crop residue on
the ground is to include
high-residue-producing crops in a crop
rotation sequence Corn and grain
sorghum generally are high-residue
crops Planting a winter cover crop
such as rye or wheat or even a
winter-hardy grass, is a good option
when growing soybeans during the
spring and summer
Other ways to leave more residue
include tilling only in the spring.
reducing the number of passes with
equipment: using equipment that
minimizes disturbance of the soil, and
using equipment that works under the
residue, leaving maximum cover
evenly distributed over the surface
Intensive management is required for
weed control when you minimize or
eliminate plowing. Here we benefit
from precision chemical control
We have come a long way in
conservation tillage technolog The
machine industry is responding ith a
lot of attachments and a lot of retrofit
My
Experience
The more the residue,
the less the pollution
of surface water.
by William Richards
Interest in conservation tillage is
growing rapidly around the country
As a faxme . I am excited about this
because I know the competitive
advantage of this technology I am also
excited as Chief of the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). the USDA
agency that has helped America
protect and conserve soil and water
since the Dust Bowl crisis of the
1930s.
The agricultural community’s
concerns about water quality and soil
erosion control are our highest
priorities at SCS We are helping
producers to understand the
interrelationships between soil, water.
air, plants. and animals and to apply
the information that comes from
research and extension agencies and
from our own surveys of soil
characteristics and other resource
conditions
LaSt year, more than 1 2 million
farmers, ranchers, and units of
government sought SCS help in
developing a conservation plan to
ensure that their operations are
environmentally and economically
sound We offered this help through
voluntary conservation programs and
through one of the most effective
public and private partnerships in this
country—our partnership with the
more than 3.000 locally organized and
Richards is Chief of the Soil locally run soil and water conservation
Conser ation Sen ice U S Department districts
of Agriculture I A tremendous array of technology is
-------
FINDING SOLUTIONS
Some Other
Options
On the Fami
equipment that can convert a planter
at reasonably low cost. So farmers
have lots of options in making
investment decisions concerning crop
residue management.
We have a whole new generation of
rierbicides that allow us to be much
more precise and sparing in our
applications. The “post-emergence’
herbicides are a boon to conservation
tillage farmers in that we can apply
them after the weeds have
sprouted—instead of before
planting—so we know how much is
needed and where. This is a real
breakthrough.
As a corn farmer in Ohio, I had a
real problem with a weed called
nson grass. But just in the last year
vo. my sons, who have taken over
•ie family farm, have been controlling
Johnson grass quite well with the new
herbicides. And we are finding that we
just do not need the quantities of
chemical we used to need. The new
chemistry has opened up whole new
areas to conservation tillage.
We have a lot of help from
technology, and we have dispelled a
lot of the myths about herbicide use,
environmental sensitivity,
productivity, profitability, and
flexibility.
Management is the key. For the
farmer, there is less room for
error—less opportunity to remedy
mistakes with a plow—but the other
side of the coin is that conservation
tillage rewards management. Early on.
I learned the competitive advantage
that comes from investing primarily in
management and brain power instead
of labor and horsepower.
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, when
we first started experimenting with
conservation tillage. we were looking
for ways to cut trips across the field in
There are many different
soil-conserving agricuiturat
methods that also a .t t.
nonpoint-source pollution
Intelligent use of these
m - “ads—either a sir i .e one or
a . nbination of severd!— in
the financial best interest ot th
farmer who wants both to i eep
his soil rich and fertile for
coming generations ana to
protect water quality.
Conservation Cover:
Establishes and maintains a
perennial vegetative cover a
protect soil and water on land
retired from agricultural
production. Conservation cover
reduces erosion and can help
improve water quality and
create or enhance wildlife
habitat.
Crop Rotation: Growing
different crops in recurring
succession on the same land.
For example. on a steep s.ope
currently planted in corn or
soybeans, a farmer migot choose
alternately to grow small grains
and hay in later plantings and
then rotate back to corn or
soybeans.
Contour Farming: The practice
of preparing land, planting
crops. and cultivating them on
the contour. Each crop row. by
serving as a small dam to hold
water on a slope, cuts soil
losses. Some contour systems
use buffer strips—wide rows of
grass between tilled contour
rows; others use contour
plantings of trees.
Contour Stripcropping: Growing
crops in a systematic
arrangement of strips and bands
on the contour to reduce water
erosion. The crops are arranged
so that a strip of grass or a
‘00 residue “ gpr era ads in
nrnrectng soii orodtjcing crops, and
.moro rig water guaI;t This
productn.e no-till :jrrn is in Ohio
C.n.J.zaiiOr ptioto S ni.rvjtjon S.r pce
Continued on page .4h
-------
close -growing crop is alternated
with a strip of clean-tilled crop
or fallow,
Terraces: An earthen
embankment. channel. or
combination ridge and channel
constructed across the slope
breaks long slopes into a series
of shorter ones. On shorter
slopes, water doesn’t build up
as much speed and has less
power to tear away soil
particles. Terraces catch water
at intervals down the slope to
temporarily store it before
delivering it through
underground tile or a grassed
waterway to the bottom of the
slope.
Diversion: A channel
constructed across a field slope
with a supporting ridge on the
lower side diverts excess water
from one area for use or safe
disposal in other areas.
Grade Stabilization Structure: A
structure used to stabilize the
grade and control erosion in
natural or artificial channels so
as to prevent formation of
gullies.
Filter Strips: Bands of
vegetation along streams or
other bodies of water filter
sediment and other pollutants
from runoff before it enters the
water body. Grass and, in some
cases, trees may well be the last
line of defense against erosion
and nonpoint pollution.
‘Windbreaks”: Rows of trees
and more random tree and
shrub plantings all help to trap
sediment from farm fields.
Grassed Vaterwav: A natural or
constructed channel that is
graded or shaped to required
dimensions and established in
suitable vegetation for the stable
conveyance of runoff. If
waterways are shaped into a
parabolic form and seeded to
provide a grass cover, the grass
will lay down like a carpet as
water flows over it. The soil is
undisturbed, and cleaner water
is delivered to streams, lakes,
and reservoirs.
Field Border: A strip of
perennial grass. legumes. or a
mix of the two established at
the edge of a field. like the
frame around a picture. It
retards soil erosion from the
field and both slows and filters
polluted runoff.
kithe City
Controlling nonpoint pollution
in urban areas is challenging.
Here are several things that you
can encourage your community
to do:
reouce poiiution entering
surface waters.
• Establish used oil and
household hazardous waste
collection programs.
• Identify areas which are
eroding or prone to erosion and
plant vegetation to stabilize the
soil.
• Use and promote walkways
and parking lots designed with
pervious (not impervious)
surfaces.
• Collect leaves and yard
trimmings frequently enough to
prevent them from washing into
stormdrains.
• Increase the frequency of
street sweeping in areas where
high levels of pollutants
accumulate.
• Purchase vacuum street
sweepers when obtaining new
equipment.
• Establish a tree protection
program.
—Jack Lewis
• Protect open space adjacent
to shorelines: The natural
vegetation serves as a filter to
St.v. Delaney pi oto
Runoir trorn city ;creer s and parking lots carries oil and other
pollutants into storm sewers
- I
-------
FINDING SOLUTIONS
‘jer to save fuel and labor But we
.ickly realized the importance of
surface mulch for moisture retention
and consistent yields and for erosion
and water quality protection.
My Corn Belt experience with
conservation tillage may differ from
farmers’ experience elsewhere We
have different crops soils. and climate
However, the basic principles work
almost everywhere, including in cotton
country
Early on, I learned the
competitive advantage that
comes from investing in
management and brain
power....
It is important to understand that
conservation tillage is not lust a
change in field practices It is a change
in farming tradition and culture
Farmers like to plow, it is part of our
heritage But now, we are making the
‘)re profitable, more environmentally
hancing practice of conservation
tillage part of our culture and part of
the heritage we pass on to the next
generation I am proud that American
farmers are turning to this technology
in increasing numbers It represents a
big decision for that 2 percent of our
population who make their living
growing food for the other 98 percent
and much of the rest of the world, all
the while coping with nature, the
market, and public sentiment.
Spreading this technology is one of
my highest priorities You might say it
is one of the highest priorities for
American agriculture because of the
challenge to get conservation tillage in
the hands of producers subject to
conservation compliance requirements
of the 1985 and 1990 farm laws These
laws tie commodity crop payments
and other USDA program benefits to
erosion control requirements on highly
erodible land
Conservation compliance is an
enormous task that involves roughly
half the farms in this country It is a
task that will double conservation
tillage over the next two and one-half
years. Right now, we have 73 million
acres of conservation tillage We
expect to reach 150 million acres by
1995, the statutory deadline for
implementing conservation compliance
plans Those are the estimates if you
look only at crop residue management
defined as “conservation tillage “ By
that I mean crop residue management
practices that leave at least 30 percent
residue cover on the surface Many
plans call for other specified levels of
residue cover
Cooperation between private
industry, the university and extension
community, and government in
providing this on-farm technology is
unprecedented. The equipment and
chem cal industries are beginning to
see great need and great opportunity
for the technology To come. are
machines that will help us minimize
compaction of soil between crop rows.
even more precise spraying
technology, and smarter
computer-driven technology overall
We are looking forward to more
conservation tillage attachments for
our farm machinery and flexibility so
farmers can convert present
equipment. Ultimately. I want to see a
completely engineered ‘system” for
crop residue management
The systems approach to residue
management and to all of our
conservation activities is essential for
total resource management By “total
resource management,” I simply mean
finding the optimum system of
practices that is good for the soil,
water. air. plants, and animals and for
the producer’s profit margin. It means
doing our best to fit together all the
pieces of the economic and
environmental “puzzle.”
Let me assure you that the risk of
agricultural nonpoint.source pollution
can be—and is being—significantly
reduced by more prudent application
of nutrients and pesticides and b
good overall land and water
management
We have found in the agricultural
community that most soil erosion
problems and other environmental
problems are very manageable Even 1
the solution is not conservation tillage
other practices such as farming on the
contour, using cover crops or
stripcropping—perhaps along v ith
conservation tillage—are solutions at
our fingertips
I believe, however that conser ation
tillage will be a key technolog for
environmentally and economicall
sound farm management. whate er the
issue at hand And I will do e er thing
I can to help industry. government
and the farm community get this
technology on the ground
-------
EPA
April 14, 1992
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BE1WEEN
THE UNiTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
on agricultural pollution prevention
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U. S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) agree to the following four basic
strategies for implementing pollution prevention in the agricultural
sector.
Strategy #1:
EPA and USDA will work together with other federal, state, and local
institutions and the private sector to develop and implement a nationwide
program to minimize agriculturally-related pollution and reduce
environmental risks.
Strategy #2:
EPA and USDA will implement a comprehensive pollution prevention
marketing strategy that will seek to achieve voluntary participation by
addressing the needs and attitudes of producers and other interested
parties within the agricultural community.
Strategy #3:
EPA and USDA will work together to imptement a coordinated research,
technology development, and technology transfer systems that support
agricultural practices that protect and enhance the environment.
-------
Strategy #4:
EPA and USDA wifl strengthen the working relationship between the two
agencies to provide a unified force for positive change in the area of
agricultural pollution prevention through voluntary initiatives, incentive
programs, and existing regulations.
The undersigned agree to form an interagency Task Force, jointly
chaired by USDA and EPA, to develop and implement an overall agricultural
pollution prevention plan. This plan will have a detailed statement of
strategic objectives incorporating environmental goals: programmatic
approaches; institutional roles; financial, human and technoio ical
resources: geographic targets: and a specific schedule for achieving
objectives in a timely manner.
The Task Force will consult with a broad spectrum of interested
parties in preparing the plan. The Task Force will present a draft
Implementation Plan to USDA and EPA senior management by October 1,
1 992.
ames R. Moseley
Assistant Secretary of
Natural Resources and e
Environment
I-
ti d t / 1u -
Linda J. Fis6 r
Assistant Administrator for
Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances
-------
unitea ta es Cornrriunicac,ons Ea caticn
Envitonmenta P’otec c i nC PLOkC AJtais
Ageicy (A- O7 ’
Note to Correspondents -
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1992
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced that
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to implement increased pollution prevention in the
agricultural sector. The MOA puts into place a plan to address
agriculturally related environmental problems.
The agreement, signed by Linda Fisher, EPA’s Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances; and James R. Moseley, USDA’S Assistant Secretary of
Natural Resources and the Environment, calls for EPA and USDA to
work cooperatively to minimize agricultural pollution and reduce
environmental risk to protect and enhance the environment.
The agreement outlines four basic strategies to achieve
environmental results: implementation of a nationwide pollution
prevention program; establishment of a coordinated research and
technology development and transfer system; implementation of a
comprehensive marketing strategy to promote voluntary pollution
prevention; and a strengthened working relationship between EPA and
USDA, using existing incentive programs, voluntary initiatives, and
regulatory programs.
The MOA calls for a senior-level interagency task force to
develop, by October 1, 1992, a detailed agricultural pollution
prevention strategy. The following five areas, with appropriate
measurable environmental goals, have been targeted for emphasis:
o Nutrient Management -- developing recommendations for
the establishment of a voluntary nutrient management
program.
o Total Resource Management Planning -- establishing
guidelines for site-specific farm and ranch plans designed
to address environmental concerns while maintaining
efficient agricultural production.
R-74 (more)
-------
Agriculture
Pollution
Prevention
Strategy
April 9, 1992
Draft
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
A. Coa ls and Approach 2
B. Legislative and Policy Background 4
C. Organizational Involvements 6
II. Agriculture and Pollution Prevention 8
A. Agriculture and the Environment 8
B. Structure of Agriculture 1 0
C. Opportunities for Change 11
III. Pollution Prevention Strategies 14
IV. Measuring Progress 19
V. Conclusion 20
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This strategy represents a new cooperative initiative of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), to adapt and apply a pollution prevention approach to
American agriculture. Bringing agriculture into greater harmony with the
environment offers the opportunity for multiple gains on all sides — for the
agriculture industry, for consumers, and for communities as a whole. -
The goal of the joint USDA/EPA agricultural pollution prevention
strategy is to protect human health and aquatic and terrestiial ecosystems
while assuring the economic viability of food and fiber production.
Agricultural systems should provide for adequate food, fiber, and forest
production; safe, diverse, and affordable food supplies; safe water and
adequate stream flows; safe work environments; and healthy aquatic and
terrestrial systems, in the context of an economically viable and globally
competitive production system.
Four strategies are outlined in the document, emphasizing the
efficient reduction of risk through voluntary action and public/private
partnerships.
Strategy #1:
EPA and USDA will work together with other government institutions and
the private sector to implement a nationwide program to minimize
agriculturally-related pollution and environmental risks.
A. Achieve nationwide voluntary improvements in nutrient application.
pesticide use, animal waste management, and cropland management
that will reduce the negative impacts of agricultural activities on the
environment.
-------
• Launch a highly visible Voluntary Action Project to secure
agreements with agriculture leaders to meet specific envwonmental
goals.
• Achieve specific national goals for adoption of total resource
management plans and practices.
B. Reduce use of more hazardous pesticides to protect water, foodstuffs,
soil, human health, and ecosystems.
• Expedite registration of low risk pesticides and those that pose
lower risks than currently-registered pesticides.
• Provide better information (e.g., hazards, exposures, lowest
effective use rate/frequency) to farmers/affected public and promote
industry/government partnerships to develop information programs.
• Identify and institute incentives for wider consumer choice
regarding pesticides and food (pesticide laboratory accreditation,
organic certification).
• Encourage development and use of alternative pest controls
(biological, cultural practices, low-risk pesticides).
C. Promote ecologically and economically sound livestock and poultry
waste management to protect surface and ground water.
• Establish livestock and poultry compacts for watershed areas.
• Ensure nutrient management plan implementation in priority
watersheds.
• Take specific enforcement actions where voluntary means fail to
meet near-term environmental objectives.
Ii
-------
0. Promote protection and enhancement of ecologically sensitive
agricultural areas and stream systems through joint research and
conservation programs and by working cooperatively with resource
agencies and private landowners.
• Target the most critical ecological resources and endangered
species through coordinated multi-media action by federal, state,
and private organizations and individuals.
• Promote protection and enhancement of conservation corridors,
wetlands, and riparian areas in priority watersheds.
• Pursue geographic priorities for water quality action.
Strategy #2:
EPA and USDA will work together to develop a comprehensive pollution
prevention marketing strategy that will seek to achieve voluntary
participation by addressing the needs and attitudes of producers and other
interested parties within the agricultural community.
A. ldentif y clienteles and clientele needs.
• Collect social and economic data for target areas and/or resources.
• Conduct marketing studies for identified clienteles.
• Develop targeted marketing strategies.
B. Develop programs to meet clientele needs.
C. Develop the marketing program.
D. Work with farm and ranch organizations to implement marketing program.
iii
-------
Strategy #3:
EPA and USDA will work together to develop a coordinated research.
technology development, and technology transfer system that supports
production practices that protect and enhance the environment.
A. Sponsor research to develop new and innovative tools.
• Increase support for research Ofl: systems that minimize the
adverse movement of agricultural chemicals; sustainable -
agriculture; farm systems; etc.
• Increase support for research on the health and ecological effects
of agricultural activities.
• Speed development of reduced risk substitutes for today’s most
risky pesticides.
• Develop improved technologies for the environmentally protective
application of pesticides and nutrients.
• Conduct studies and provide information on barriers to reducing
unnecessary pesticide use.
B. Transfer research findings.
• Develop improved methods for transfer of technology to achieve
behavioral and environmental improvements.
• Investigate the effectiveness of alternative methods to market new
and environmentally-sound agricultural practices.
iv
-------
Strategy #4:
EPA and USDA will strengthen the working relationship between the two
agencies in order to provide a unified force for positive change in the area
of agricultural pollution prevention.
A. Develop and finalize a USDA /EPA memorandum of agreement on
agricultural pollution prevention activities.
B. Identify and implement joint legislative authorities related to
agricultural pollution prevention in the Clean Water Act, the 1985 and
1990 Farm Bills and future legislation.
C. Identify opportunities for additional sources of funding that can be
targeted to agricultural poUutton prevention.
D. Establish an EPMJSDA Task Force to develop and carry out the
implementation phase of the agriculture pollution prevention strategy.
Focusing on agriculture and pollution prevention offers policy makers
the chance to address a number of difficult environmental problems. Specific
action plans will be developed over the next few months to identify the
offices within EPA and USDA that will carry out the activities outlined in the
strategy document.
V
-------
AGRICULThRE
POLLUTION PREVENTION STRATEGY
I. LNTRODUCrION
This strategy represents a new cooperative initiative of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to adapt and apply a pollution prevention approach to
American agriculture. The challenge is to continue to produce a safe and
abundant food supply while assuring the economic viability of the agricultural
sector, protecting public health, and preserving the integrity of the
environment. The goal is to keep America’s agricultural sector on a healthy
footing — environmentally sound and financially viable.
Among the many activities that affect the environment, agriculture is
one of the most prominent, so prominent, indeed, that only rarely is
agriculture addressed as a single entity. Numerous environmental issues —
ground-water contamination, water quality and availability, occupational and
dietary exposures to pesticides, nonpoint source pollution and soil
productivity — have strong associations with agriculture. Focusing on
agriculture and pollution prevention offers policy makers an opportunity to
address a number of difficult problems simultaneously. The connections
between agriculture and the environment are examined in more detail in
section II of this strategy document.
The challenges involved in bringing agriculture into greater harmony
with the environment are many and will require a variety of approaches
during the next decade and well into the twenty-first century. No single
approach to agriculture can possibly be appropriate for all two million
American farms, much less to forestry and other types of agricultural
establishments. What is clear at this point is the direction of change, and the
goals towards which we need to move. Section II I of this document outlines
-------
a set of pollution prevention strategies for addressing the environmental
issues associated with agriculture.
Many of these goals and targets will be determined and implemented
through discussions between the public and private sectors. There remains a
great deal of room for flexibility and individual initiative, new approaches and
local innovations. This strategy document is therefore envisioned as a first
step -- but significant step — towards a national strategy on agriculture and
the environment.
A. Goals and Approach
The goal of the joint USDNEPA agricultural pollution prevention
strategy is to protect human health and aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
while assuring the economic viability of food and fiber production.
Agricultural systems should provide for adequate food, fiber, and
forest production; safe, diverse, and affordable food supplies; safe water and
adequate stream flows; safe work environments; and healthy aquatic and
terrestrial systems, in the context of an economically viable and globally
competitive production system.
The strategy is based on the following approach:
• Priorities are set and pollution prevention activities are targeted
based on knowledge of risk to human health and natural ecosystems.
• Available tools are employed to efficiently reduce risk through
voluntary action. Tools include market incentives, public/private
partnerships, information and labeling, and other educational tools
that empower people. Examples of these tools in the agricultural
setting are provided in Exhibit 1. Regulations and enforcement are
used as needed.
-2-
-------
Exhibit 1
Selected Examples of Available Tools
Tools Examples
Information and Improved soil tests
Education Improved biotogical controls
Improved practices to support long-term
soil productivity
Recommendations for safer pesticide use
and more efficient fertilizer use
Improved efficiencies of equipment use
Improved irrigation and applicatton
technology
Improved pesticide hazard and exposure
information
Assistance in setting priorities
Recommendations for modification of crop
varieties, crop rotation, faltowing, and
intercropping
Market Mechanisms & Product substitution
Economic Incentives Performance awards
AJtered pnce support structures
Cost sharing
Organic certification
Technical Assistance Total resource management plans
Nutrient and pesticide management plans
Voluntary Action Improved chemical use, reduced land use
intensity, appropriate grazing rates
Obtaining consensus on local environmental
needs
Regulations and Animal permits
Enforcement Public drinking water requirements
Pesticide use restrictions
-------
• Partnerships are encouraged as a particularly important framework
for undertaking initiatives. Partnerships can encompass interested
parties at all levels of involvement, in both the private and public
sectors.
• New approaches to reduce risk need to be stimulated and
implemented, including less risky substitutes and more
environmentally and economically efficient use of chemicals.
• Progress is evaluated by quantitative and qualitative measure of
environmental and economic results.
This strategy is the result of a year-long effort by a joint EPMJSDA
Focus Group. In developing the strategy, much thought was given to building
on prevention efforts already underway at both EPA and USDA, rather than
duplicating current efforts. The strategy focuses on opportunities that are
not currently receiving attention and that appear to be most promising.
The selection of candidates for new prevention initiatives also
emphasizes addressing multiple risks. For example, total resource
management planning usually involves an examination of multiple sources of
risk to human health and ecological systems; similarly, protection of riparian
systems, which filter several pollutants, de-nitril ’ nitrogen, and provide
cntical aquatic and terrestrial habitat, offers multiple environmental benefits.
B. Legislative and Policy Background
Over the past few years, pollution prevention has become an
increasingly high priority in the public policy agenda. This new emphasis has
been spurred by the complex environmental challenges facing us in the
I 990s, the limitations of traditional pollution control approaches, and our
growing understanding of the complexity of ecological systems.
In an influential report issued in September 1990, EPA’s Science
Advisory Board (SAB) stated as a major recommendation that ‘EPA should
-4-
-------
emphasize pollution prevention as the preferred option for reducing risk.”
Of the eight highest-risk environmental problems identified by the SAB in that
report. four have some association with agnculture (worker exposure to
chemicals in agriculture, drinking water pollution, loss of habitats, and species
extinction/loss of biodiversity).
At USDA, interest in a preventive approach to agricultural pollution has
evolved out of the President’s Initiative for Water Quality and in response to
State NPS Assessment reports prepared pursuant to Section 31 9 of the Clean
Water Act that identi& agriculture as a principal source of nonpoint source
pollution.
In 1990, Congress affirmed its commitment to a new approach to
environmental pollution by passing the Pollution Prevention Act of 1 990. The
Act establishes as “national policy a hierarchy of environmental protection
which states that:
• Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source wherever
feasible;
• Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an
environmentally safe manner;
• Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in
an environmentally safe manner; and
• Disposal or other release into the environment should be used
“only as a last resort.u
U.S. EPA, Reducing Risk: Setting Pnorit.ses and Strategies for Environmental Protection,
Washington, D.C.. September, i990.
-5-
-------
EPA’s National Pollution Prevention Strategy 2 commits the Agency to
develop specific strategies for agriculture as well as other sectors of the
economy. The publication of this strategy also responds to a request from
the Senate Appropriations Committee to address “the full range of
environmental problems including agriculture, energy, and Federal activity as
well as from industrial point sources.” 3
C. Organizational Involvements
In developing this strategy, EPA and USDA worked closely to define
goals, develop objectives, and determine the most feasible approach to
achieve success. The working relationship and increasing convergence of the
goals of these two federal departments is an important aspect of this
strategy. Specific action plans will be developed over the next few months to
identify the offices within EPA and USDA that will carry out the activities
outlined in the strategy.
Implementation of this strategy may encompass a wide variety of
people and organizations involved in the agricultural world, including the
following:
• Individuals — farmers, ranchers, farm equipment distributors and
dealers, chemical producers, consumers, agricultural marketers.
exporters, farm laborers, wildlife recreationists, farm neighbors’
communities.
• Trade and Interest Groups — community, chemical and machine
industry, food processors, marketers, environmental and
conservation groups. consumers, commercial fishermen.
U S. EPA, Pollution Prevention Strategy. Washington, D.C., Federal Register 56:7849-64,
February 26. 1991.
Report of the Committee of Conference accompanying H.R. 5158.
-6-
-------
• Other Organizations — local, county, state, agricultural, forestry,
university, non-governmental private and quasi-public
organizations.
• Governments — local, county, and state officials; Native American
tribal governments; soil and water conservation districts. At the
federal level, EPA, USDA, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department of Energy, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Army
Corps of Engineers, and several agencies within the Department of
the interior such as the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
-7-
-------
AGRICULTURE AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
A. Agriculture and the Environment
Agricultural impacts on the environment have come under increasing
scrutiny in recent years as investments by industry and municipalities have
reduced other sources of pollution. Agricultural pollution is often categorized
as a type of nonpoint source pollution’ because it cannot be traced to a
single source such as an industrial discharge pipe. Nevertheless, a variety of
environmental effects on human health and the environment can result from
agricultural activity:
Water Quality and Quantity — surface water and ground water may
be contaminated by pesticides, fertilizers, sediment, and animal
waste; water quantity and quality may be affected by irrigation
which can reduce instream flows and deplete aquifers.
• Global Climate aiange — clearing of land releases stored carbon as
carbon dioxide, livestock contribute methane; these greenhouse
gases are implicated in global warming.
• Soil — soil erosion reduces soil productive capacity and leads to
sedimentation in streams, lakes, and estuaries; irrigation can affect
soil salinity and the health of wetlands that receive irrigation
return flows.
• Human Health — exposure to agricultural chemicals can occur
through occupational contact with chemicals by agricultural
workers, residues of pesticides in foods, pesticide drift, and
pesticides and nitrates in drinking water.
• Biodiversity and Habitat — pesticides may kill non-target birds and
other non-target organisms such as beneficial insects; sediment can
cover aquatic organisms and spawning areas; conversions to
-8.
-------
cropland and grazing operations may cause losses in terrestrial and
aquatic habitats such as wetlands and nparian areas, and may
directly or indirectly lead to reductions in species diversity and -
abundance.
A variety of approaches have been put forward in recent years to bring
agriculture into greater harmony with the environment. Although there is no
single blueprint, a hallmark of these approaches is that they typically treat the
farm as a single, balanced system. The goal in a balanced farming system is
total resource management — specifically, to minimize the need for hazardous
pesticides and excess nutrients, conserve water and soil, enhance soil
productivity, and ensure that farms can continue to produce adequate food
supplies while providing farmers with a reasonable profit. Depending on site
specific factors of location, crop, climate, etc., some or all of the following
practices will be appropriate:
• Improved nutrient recommendations and timing of application of
nutrients.
• Crop rotations, which mitigate weed, disease, and insect problems,
increase available soil nitrogen, improve soil structure, and reduce
soil erosion.
• Integrated pest management (1PM), which generally reduces the
need for environmentally hazardous pesticides by relying more on
crop rotations, scouting, weather monitoring, use of resistant
cultivars, timing of planting, and biological pest controls.
• Soil-conserving tillage that retains a protective cover of crop
residues.
• Animal production systems that properly manage waste products to
prevent pollution of surface and ground waters.
-9-
-------
B. Structure of Agriculture
-Any strategy for the prevention of agricultural nonpoint source
pollution must consider the significant changes in the structure of agriculture
in the last 25 years as well as historical factors that have influenced
agricultural policy.
In the last quarter century, the United States has seen a shift away
from the middle-sized family farm that had characterized American agriculture
since colonial days. Most agricultural production in the US. is now centered
on a small number of very large farms. At the other end of the spectrum.
there has been a proliferation of small farms where the owner must work off
the farm in order to survive, or where the owner is a wealthy landowner who
wants to “hobby farm.
Other changes have occurred in the structure of American agriculture
as well. There has been a sizable increase in the amount of U.S. farmland
owned by people who do not farm. Many farms are owned by absentee
owners, who lease land to larger farmers or farm management firms to
operate the farms. Rural communities are no longer dominated by
agriculture, and farmers make up only about 1 5 percent of the rural
population.
These changes have contributed to a fragmentation of the agricultural
sector into a number of smaller differentiated groups with different needs,
motivations, and perspectives on agriculture. The success of a largely-
voluntary pollution prevention program will depend on the receptivity of
individual farmers and ranchers, their willingness to invest time and resources
in changing their practices, and the ability of the implementing organizations
to design programs that meet client needs. Switching to less familiar
agncultural methods will involve uncertainty and change: the new techniques
may require more labor, time, or information than conventional farming with
one or two crops. It will be imperative to understand the needs and
perspectives of different agricultural communities and “audiences” in order to
effectively promote change.
- 10-
-------
C. Opportunities for Change
Some farmers have recently been adopting thëtechnologies of
conservation tillage, integrated pest management, and nutrient management,
as well as the concepts of total resource management. Many programs and
technologies are currently being demonstrated in the field; communities are
working with agricultural producers and agribusiness; states and research
organizations are active as well.
Key opportunities for change stem from recent Presidential mandates
and Congressional legislation in the areas of conservation and water quality.
By far the largest resources for protecting the environment have become
available as a result of the Farm Bills of 1985 and 1990. Nearly a tenth of
U.S. cropland will be idled for several years by the Conservation Reserve
Program (for highly erodible land) and the Wetlands Reserve Program set up
by the legislation. Erodible lands and wetlands are further protected by
compliance programs which deny virtually all farm program benefits to
farmers who fail to adhere to plans on their highly erodible lands or who
plow up wetlands without mitigating the loss.
As they are fully implemented over the next few years, the effects of
the 1 990 Farm Bill and its agricultural conservation provisions will be
considered in further developing this agricultural pollution prevention
strategy.
At both EPA and USDA a number of programs are currently underway
that relate to agricultural pollution prevention. Several of them are described
briefly below.
integrated Pest Management Forum. EPA and USDA are
cosponsoring a public/private National [ PM Forum in June 1992.
The goal of the forum is to accelerate the development and
implementation of environmentally-sound pest management
practices and to identiFy the best methods for overcoming current
impediments to the broad-scale adoption of 1PM in American
agriculture. Four commodity teams (for vegetables, fruits, cotton,
—11 —
-------
and corn/soybeans) have been tasked to prepare blueprints for
action.
• Nonpoint Source/Coastal Nonpoint Programs. Under section 319
of the Clean Water Act, EPA awarded $51 million in grant funds to
the States in 1991 and is awarding $52 million in 1992 to
implement EPA-approved state management programs for nonpoint
source pollution control; agricultural projects receive the most
funds of all types of noripoint sources. Many of the projects
emphasize pollution prevention or source reduction. Examples
include integrated pest management, nutrient management, proper
disposal of dead poultry, sediment control, etc. Under the
authority of the amended Coastal Zone Management Act, EPA is
developing guidance specifying management measures for sources
of nonpoint pollutiort (including agriculture) in coastal waters.
Measures have been proposed for sediment control, animal waste
management, nutrient and pesticide management. grazing, and
irrigation.
• Conservation Reserve Program. The 1990 Farm Bill set a goal of
enrolling 39 to 44 million acres in the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) which takes fragile farmland out of production for
between 10 and 15 years. Producers who enroll in the CRP receive
an annual rental payment for idling the land; they also receive cost-
share help for establishing permanent cover (either grass or trees).
Over 35 million acres have been enrolled in the USDA-administered
program since 1 985; the average soil loss on these acres has been
reduced from nearly 22 tons per acre per year to less than 2 tons
per acre per year. Stream corridors, welihead protection areas,
and other environmentally critical lands are also eligible for CRP.
• Registration of Reduced Risk Pesticides. An April 1992 Federal
Register notice and public workshop solicits public comments on
possible policies, criteria, and procedures for encouraging the
development and registration of negligible-risk pesticides and
replacement pesticides that are less hazardous than currently-
registered products. Options may include faster review of
- 12 -
-------
applications, lower fees and registration costs, reconsideration of
current registrations for riskier pesticides, and public listing of
risky pesticides as targets for replacement.
Sustainable Agriculture. The Sustainable Agriculture and Research
Program (formerly known as USA) started in FY 1988 as a small but
innovative grants program to develop and disseminate to farmers
practical, reliable information on alternative farming practices. To
date, the Cooperative State Research Service of USDA has
cooperated with 1 .600 farmers on a wide range of alternative
agriculture research and demonstration projects.
ACE Grants. One of the flrst interagency cooperative grant
programs in the federal government, the Agriculture in Concert
with the Environment (ACE) grant program is administered by EPA’s
Office of Pollution Prevention and the USDA Cooperative State
Research Service. Twenty-one grants were awarded in F? 1991
with the objective of assuring the adoption of sustainable
agriculture practices and reducing the use of herbicides and other
pesticides.
President’s Water Quality Initiative. Several agencies concerned
with environmental quality are implementing the President’s
initiative on water quality, including USDA, EPA, and USGS. The
primary objectives are to determine the relationship between
agricultural activities and ground water quality, arid to develop and
encourage the adoption of technically and economically effective
agricultural management and production strategies to protect
ground and surface water quality. The three major components of
the initiative are education and technical assistance, research and
development, and database development.
- 13 -
-------
III. POLLUTION PREVENTION STRATEGIES
-This section presents EPA and USDA’s strategy for achieving
substantial, measurable pollution prevention in the agricultural sector. Four
strategies are outlined here, along with more specific objectives and targets.
Strategy #1:
EPA and USDA will work together with other government institutions and
the private sector to implement a nationwide program to minimize
agriculturally-related pollution and environmental risks.
A. Achieve nationwide voluntary improvements in nutrient application,
pesticide use, animal waste management, and cropland management
that will reduce the negative impacts of agricultural activities on the
environment.
• Launch a highly visible Voluntary Action Project to secure
agreements with agriculture leaders to meet specific environmental
goals.
— Implement in phases: cropland, animals, forestry, grazing.
— Focus on a small number of catalytic forces with significant
public impact.
— Example approaches: marketing campaign to farmers about
crop residue management and reduced tillage; focused
campaign with largest nitrogen suppliers; targeting of major
buyers.
• Achieve specific national goals for adoption of farm management
plans and practices.
- 14-
-------
— Develop and implement total resource management plans
for farmers and ranchers. Institute incentives for adoption
of these plans.
— Assist in educating and/or certil ,ring farm, range, and
forestry consultants.
— Improve nitrogen fertilizer and pesticide recommendations,
management critena, and farm guidance on implementation.
B. Reduce use of more hazardous pesticides to protect water, foodstuffs,
soil, human health, and ecosystems.
• Expedite registration of low risk pesticides and those that pose
lower risks than currently-registered pesticides.
• Provide better information (e.g., hazards, exposures, lowest
effective use rate/frequency) to farmers/affected public and promote
industry/government partnerships to develop information programs.
• ldentif and institute incentives for wider consumer choice
regarding pesticides and food (pesticide laboratory accreditation,
organic certification).
• Encourage use of alternative pest controls (biological, cultural
practices, low-risk pesticides).
C. Promote ecologically and economically sound livestock and poultry
waste management to protect surface and ground water.
• Establish livestock and poultry compacts for watershed areas.
• Ensure nutrient management plan implementation in priority
watersheds.
• Take specific enforcement actions where voluntary means fail to
meet near-term environmental objectives.
- 15 -
-------
D. Promote protection and enhancement of ecologically sensitive
agricultural areas and stream systems through cooperative efforts with
resource agencies and private landowners and through research and
protection programs.
• Target the most critical ecological resources and endangered
species through coordinated multi-media action by federal, state,
and private organizations.
• Promote protection and enhancement of conservation corridors,
wetlands, and riparian areas in priority watersheds.
• Pursue geographic priorities for water quality action.
— ldentil i priority watersheds/recharge areas for surface and
ground water protection, based on environmental risk.
— Assist local leadership in setting criteria and establishing
agreements to improve the environment.
— Rely on education and technical assistance, where it proves
effective.
— Monitor water quality improvement against agreed-upon
targets.
— Promote public/private partnerships to protect instream
flows.
- 16-
-------
Strategy #2:
EPA and USDA will work together to develop a comprehensive pollution -
prevention marketing strategy that will seek to achieve voluntary
participation by addressing the needs and attitudes of producers and other
interested parties within the agricultural community.
A. Identify clienteles and clientele needs.
• Collect social and economic data for target areas and/or resources.
• Conduct marketing studies for identified clienteles.
• Develop targeted marketing strategies.
B. Develop programs to meet clientele needs.
C. Develop the marketing program.
D. Work with farm and ranch organizations to implement marketing
program.
Strategy #3:
EPA and USDA will work together to develop a coordinated research.
technology development, and technology transfer system that supports
production practices that protect and enhance the environment.
A. Sponsor research to develop new and innovative tools.
• Increase support for research on systems which reduce the use and
movement of agricultural chemicals; sustainable agriculture; farm
system research; etc.
• Increase support for research on the health and ecological effects
of agricultural activities.
- 17-
-------
• Speed development of reduced risk substitutes for today’s most
risky pesticides.
• Develop improved technologies for the environmentally protective
application of pesticides and nutrients.
• Conduct studies and provide information on barriers to reducing
unnecessary pesticide use.
B. Transfer research findings.
• Develop improved methods for transfer of technology to achieve
behavioral and environmental improvements.
• Investigate the effectiveness of alternative methods to market new
and environmentally-sound agricultural practices.
Strategy #4:
EPA and USDA will strengthen the working relationship between the two
agencies in order to provide a unified force for positive change in the area
of agricultural pollution prevention.
A. Develop and finalize a USDAIEPA memorandum of agreement on
agricultural pollution prevention activities.
B. ldentif i and implement joint legislative authorities related to pollution
prevention in the Clean Water Act, the 1985 and 1990 Farm Bills and
future legislation.
C. IdentiFy opportunities for additional sources of funding that can be
targeted to pollution prevention.
D. Establish an EPMJSDA Task Force to develop and carry out the
implementation phase of the pollution prevention strategy.
- 18 -
-------
IV. MEASURING PROGRESS
For each of the four agricultural pollution prevention strategies,
quantifiable measures will be developed and monitored, with an emphasis,
wherever possible, on assessing progress in terms of environmental and
economic results. Examples of measures of progress may include the
following:
• Increases in numbers of certified farm consultants
• Number of states adopting improved ferttlizer recommendations
• Acreage of cropland under total resource management planning
• Acreage of cropland under integrated pest management and
following nutrient recommendations for nitrogen and phosphorus
• Availability and use of lower risk pesticides
• Acreage of riparian lands enrolled in the CRP
• Acreage of restored wetlands, riparian stream corridors on public
grazing lands, and other environmentally sensitive areas
• Development of goals for changes in use and application of
agricultural chemicals
• National certification program for organic foods.
- 19-
-------
V. CONCLUSION
For generations, American agriculture has been the pride of this
country and a source of our prosperity. Bringing agriculture into greater
harmony with the environment offers the opportunity for multiple gains on all
sides — for the agriculture industry, for consumers, and for communities as a
whole. At the same time, a vigorous pollution prevention effort in the
agricultural sector will complement pollution prevention efforts going on in
other sectors — industry, energy and transportation, the federal government,
and the consumer sector.
- 20 -
-------
STORM WATER - FACT SHEET
Water Quality ImpacLs/ Environmental Risks:
• Pollution from runoff of agnculture, urban areas, and other sources is a leading cause of water quality impairment States reported
that nonpoint sources including urban runoff, resource extraction, and construction activities caused up to 30% impairment of the
u e impairment in waters that were assessed. [ ‘The National Water Quality Inventory’, 1988 Report to Congress]
38 states have reported urban runoff as a major cause of use impairment; 21 states report construction site runoff as a major cause
ot use impairment; storm water has contnbuted to the impairment of approximately one quarter of the lakes and estuaries assessed
by states and found to be impaired. [ 1985 AS1WPCA study; ‘America’s Clean Water- The States Nonpoint Source Assessment’]
I Shellfish harvesting is limited in numerous areas of the Gulf, East, and West coasts due to urban runoff. Gulf Coast- 1,000,000
acres, West Coast- 130,000 acres, East coast- 600,000 acres. [ The Qualiry of Shellfish Growing Waters on the East Coast, West
Coa.it, and Gulf of Mexico, NOAA 1988-90]
Statutory Provisions: - The Clean Water Act, amended in 1987 to include section 402(p)
• Establishes 2-Phase Storm Water Program
• Phase 1 - Permits required for large (over 250,000 pop. served) and medium (100,000 - 250,000 pop. served) separate storm
sewer systems and storm water discharges ‘associated with industrial activity’.
• Phase 11 - EPA to assess remaining storm water discharges, establish procedures and methods to control storm water contamination
to extent necessary to mitigate impacts on water quality, and issue Phase IL storm water regulations by October 1, 1992.
ReguLitory Provisions:
• Current Regulations
• Final rule published [ 1/16/90 established scope of program. defined ‘storm water discharge associated with industrial activity’,
identified 220 large and medium municipal storm sewer systems, and established permit application requirements
• Current Municipal Application Deadlines:
Medium municipal separate storm sewer system. Part 1- 5/18/92; Part 2- 5/17/93
Large municipal separate storm sewer system. Part 1- 11/18/91; Part 2- 11/16/92
• Current Industrial Application Options and Deadlines.
o Individual application- The deadline for submission of an individual application is 10/1/92
o Two Part Group Application- Part 1 - 9/30/91; Part 2 - 5/18/92 (Proposed extension to 10/1/92)
Facilities may add to existing groups until 2/18/92. (For industrial activities conducted by municipalities, see Transportation
Act below)
0 General permits- Facilities may file a Notice of Intent (NOD to be covered by a general permit once one is adopted
Coverage
o Municipal: 173 cities and 47 counties
o Industrial: Over 100,000 facilities that have storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. These include:
manufacturing/industrial facilities; construction operations involving at least 5 acres; hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities; landfills, certain sewage treatment plants; recycling facilities; power plants, mining operations, some oil and
gas operations; airports; and other transportation facilities.
o Discharges to a combined sewer system or public owned treatment works (POTW’s) are not required to get a permit
Storm Water Implementation Package for Industrial Dischargers of Storm Water:
• General Permit - relies primarily on pollution prevention approach requiring development of a management plan to prevent
contamination ot storm water runoff - high risk sources must comply with additional conditions.
• Proposed rule for draft general permit, published on 8/16/9 1, for use in the 12 states where EPA is the permitting authority AK,
AZ, FL, ID, LA, MA, ME, NH, NM, OK, SD, and TX.
• Long-term Strategy - risk-based approach to deal with identified water quality problems and support watershed initiatives The
strategy consists of a four tiered framework:
• Tier I - Baseline Permitting : One or more general permits will be developed to initially cover the majonty of storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity.
• Tier II - Watershed Permitting : Facilities within watersheds shown to be adversely impacted by storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity will be targeted for individual or watershed-specific permits.
• Tier III - Industry-Specific Permitting : Specific categories will be targeted for individual or industry-specific general permits
• Tier IV - Facility-Specific Permitting : A variety of factors will be used to target specific facilities for individual permits
Surface Transportation Act of 1991
• Changes .
• Industrial activities conducted by municipalities of less than 100,000 population placed into moratorium with three exceptions
power plants, airports, and uncontrolled sanitary landfills.
• Individual permit application deadline of 10/1/92 confirmed for ‘municipal industrial’ applications.
• Part 2 Group application deadline for industrial activities conducted by municipalities above 250,000 population set for 10/1/92
• New Deadlines for group applications for industrial activities conducted by municipalities of 100,000 - 250,000 population (and
power plants, airports, and uncontrolled sanitary landfill activities conducted by municipalities of less than 100,000 population)
Part 1 - 5/18/92, Part 2 - 5/17/93
2/6/92 Office of Wastewater Enforcement and ComplianLc
-------
App cat on Duc *s for Storm Wt Discharges
Associated with lndus tsI Ac vIty
fist De.dtfn Established
in 11/16/90, 3/21/91, w
11/5/91 tuI kfrigs
Deadlines In NI way Traneportatfon Act
C ily a -,uas facilities oensd
or operated by .clpMities)
A a C 0
1ndr i&al Application 10/1/92
10/*/92 10/1/92 1011192 post 10/1/92
Indiviö. sl Appticaticn Iron 12 .onths fron
facility rejected Iron groi notification .f
aççtication rejection or 10/1/92
110 days sftei 150 days after 110 days after
rejection rejection rejection post 10/1/92
fros gro.p fron grc i. fron groi.
Groi. Application: ‘art 1 9/30/91
9130/91 511 5/92 5/18/92 post 10/1/92
Grc .p Application: Part 2 5/11/92
10/1/92 (proposed)
1011192 3 1*7/93 5/17193 post 1O/1?92
Iriivfcâi.t ApplicatIon 180 days prior
fros facility with .xistlng to expiration
IPOES permit of permit
no d orqs no change no change no change
it ivi al Application 90 days before
for construction activities construction
disturbing 5 or osra cres
no dtange no change no change post 10/1/92
1r Ivf i.l Application for 180 days
new storm water discharges before discharge
(oth.r than construction c ices
activities)
no ch e no change no change post 10/1/92
A - trdatrlal activity cord ct.d by t lcipsLities with a popuLation of 250,000 or esr.
B !rôatri.l activity coi ctsd by *ricipsUties with a ,i(atlon of 100,000 or once, bitt l o ss than 250,000
C Airport., powsrptsnt., or Lmccntrol(ed sanitary lwi filts r.tud by Ia.rttc lp.Lit lss with a population of Less that 00
0 • All other storm water disch.rges from Irdatrisl act1v ties aid or operated by .aiic lpslities with a pop i.itet on s i*U
than 100,000
NOTES: Persons cc ,ered by general permits ire ezct ided frcm re iiru.ents to si ft lndfvf al permit applications (see 0 CFU
122. 21 (a ) ). Instead, application require.ents and deadlines for a general permit, referred to is a notice of intent (I O*) ,
are established in the general permit. Operators of stor. water discharges associated with inójstrial activity i4nch are
currently not authorized by an E$ permit sat st It an indivi*at Iicst1cri , c Ly with Part 2 groi application
reqijironents, or obtain coverage irider on appropriate general permit by the deadline for fndivI&at permit application or Pert
2 gro*. application.
TIE EPA lS E ecQ. 5T1005 WITS b 4sa TO PE 1T$ $T0 1U DISCIIMIES AS80C1AT VITU INOIJStl(AL ACTTV1T
ON ON IEF 211192 .
Appicailon Dea inss for Discharges from
Mw*Idp& Separate Storm Sewr Systems
11/16190 UFes
C.&A Deadline.
*aiicipel kpsr.te Storm
Sewer iy.t Servings
Population of 230,000 or
Part 1
11/11/91
2/4/90
Part 2
11/16/92
.
Mu.rifcfpet Sap.rst. Storm
Sewer syst serving a
Population of ¶00,000 or
once, but less than 250,000
Part 1
5/16/92
2/4/92
Part 2
5/17/93
-
Nf iway Trarmport.t ion Act onde no awntion of thes, deadlines
-------
STCRM WATER FACT SHEET
December 1 2.
/
/
-------
STORM WATER FACT SHEET
Where did the storm water program coma from?
972
Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits for all point source discharges to water.
973
EPA issues regulations requiring permits QflJ .y for storm water contaminated by industrial
or commercial activity Point source discharges of “uncontaminated” storm water are
exempt unless significant contributors” of pollution.
975
Court of Appeals rernands 1 973 regulations holding that permits are required for all point
source discharges of storm water
Amendme
CWA
nts
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is amended to require EPA to establish a phased program to
address storm water discharges
$
Prior to October 1 1 992, NPDES permits are prohibited for discharges composed
entirely of storm water, except.
• Discharges that were issued a permit prior to February 4, 1 987
• Discharges associated with industrial activity
• Discharges from medium and large municipal separate storm sewer systems
(systems servinga population of 100,000 or mote)
• Discharges designated by EPA or an NPDES State as a significant contributor of
pollutants or contributing to the violation of a water quality standard
Deadlines for EPA to issue permit application regulations, for dischargers to submit
applications, and EPA or NPDES States to issues permits are established
Best Available Treatment (BAT) and water quality-based requirements apply to permits
for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity
Permits for discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems; (1) may be issued
on a system-wide basis; (2) must effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges and
(3) must control pollutants to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), including
compliance with water quality standards.
II
EPA must conduct two studies of storm water discharges not covered under Phase I
Prior to October 1, 1992. EPA must issue regulations which designate additional storm
water discharges to be regulated to protect water quality and establish a cornprenenSve
program to regulate such discharges The program shall. at a minimum:
A. Establish priorities
8. Establish requirements for State storm water management programs
C. Establish deadlines
The program may include performance standards, guidelines, guidance, and mar -
practices and treatment requirements -
-------
E 1.834.03.2166-004\STORMwATINTERIM2 EP
What has EPA been doing this past year to implement the st ’m water program?
Promulgated final Storm Water application regulation: (1) defines a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity; (2) establishes group and industrial NPOES permit
application requirements; (3) defines large and medium municipal separate storm sewer
systern and (4) establishes two-part permit application requirements for municipal systems
(November 16, 1990).
Storm Water Hotline responded to over 25,000 calls since the Application rule was
published (12/90- 11/91).
Participated in over 50 workshops and presentations throughout the country training
permitting authorities and educating the regulated community.
Extended regulatory deadline for Part 1 of the group application from March 1 8. 1 991 to
September 30, 1991
Extended the individual permit application deadline from November 1 8. 1991. to October 1,
1 992 (Proposed to extend the deadline for Part 2 of the group application from May 1 8,
1992 to October 1, 1992.)
A total of 1,200 Part 1 group applications received to date covering approximately 5 8.000
facilities.
Published and distributed municipal and industrial permit application manuals in addition to
numerous summaries, fact sheets, and workshop materials.
Model Part 1 group application and supplemental information published and distributed
Proposed Storm Water Implementation Rule including draft baseline general permit
(August 16, 1 991)
Fourteen public hearings held throughout the country to discuss general permits
Comments on the Implementation Rule totaling over 2.600 pages received from over 300
commentors.
NROC/EPA oral arguments (9th Circuit) in litigation challenging November 1 990 rule on
scop, deadlines, and coverage of inactive mines (October, 1 991)
Responded to over 1 20 Congressional letters, and over 200 other correspondences
National Storm Water Coordinators Meeting (November 12-13, 1991).
I
I
-------
Risk-based Approach
Statute required mandatory permitbased approach based on storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. EPA has developed the following risk-based permitting strategy to implement itutory
requirements:
Tier I. Minimum baseline general permit for most discharges
Tier II: Watershed permitting target facilities within adversely impacted watersheds for individual or
watershedspecific permits
Tier Ill Industry-specific permitting - industrial categories will be targeted for individual or industry-specific
general permits
Tier IV Facility-specific permitting • target individual facilities causing particularly severe impacts for
individual permits.
II Defining Which Industrial Facilities are Included in the Storm Water Program
EPA has defined the term storm water discharge associated with industrial activity in a comprehensive
manner to address over 1 00,000 facilities (see Appendix A for complete definition and Appendix B for a
discussion of applicability of the definition). Storm water discharges associated with industrial activity th
discharge through municipal separate storm sewer systems must also submit NPDES permit applications.
including those which discharge through systems serving populations less than 100.000. Discharges of
storm water to a combined sewer system or to a P01W are excluded.
Facilities with storm water disct arges associated with industrial activity include: 1) facilities subject to
storm water effluent guidelines, new source performance standards, or toxic pollutant effluent standards.
2) manufacturing facilities; 3) mining operations and oil and gas operations; 4) hazardous waste treatment.
storage, or disposal facilities; 5) landfills, land application sites and open dumps; 6) recycling facillities,
7) steam electric power generating facilities. 8) certain transportation facilities; 9) certain sewage
treatment plants; 10) construction activity disturbing five or more acres; and 11) other manufacturing
facilities where materials or activities are exoosed to storm water. Operators of industrial facilities that are
Federally, State, or municipally owned or operated that meet the description of the facilities iisted in
122.26(b)(14)(i)-(xi) must also submit applications
The storm water regulation presents three permit application options for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity: 1) submittal of an individual application consisting of Forms 1 and 2F,
2) participation in a group application, 3) filing of a Notice of Intent (NOl) to be covered under a general
permit in accordance with the requirements of an issued general permit.
-------
Ill. Statutory Deadlines
The 1 987 amendments to CWA established a deadline of February 4, 1 990 for submission of permit
applications for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity and discharges from large
municipal separate storm sewer systems, and a deadline of February 4, 1 992 for discharges from medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems. The November 1 6, 1 990 application rule provided certain
deadlines for meeting the substantive requirements of that rulemaking which extended beyond the
statutory deadlines. In response to concerns raised by the regulated community regarding the complexity
of the regulatiorts and the lack of general permits. EPA extended the deadline for submitting Part 1 of the
group application from March 18, 1991 to September 30. 1991 and extended the deadline for submitting
individual permit applications from November 18, 1991 to October 1, 1992. EPA also proposed to extend
Part 2 of the group application deadline from May 1 8, 1 992 to October 1, 1 992. Deadlines for submission
of applications for discharges from large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems remain
unchanged.
IV Water Quality Standards
Under the present statute, discharges associated with industrial activity (including municipally operated
industrial activities) must comply with water quality standards. The statutory requirement that pollutants
in discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems be reduced to the maximum extent practicable
has been interpreted to require compliance with water quality standards as well.
V Regulatory Approach
In order to implement EPA’s long-term permitting strategy discussed above, the application regulations
provide three options for obtaining permit coverage: 1) individual applications; 2) group applications, and
3) NOl to be covered under a general permit. This approach utilizes the flexibility provided by CWA ri
issuing NPOES permits. EPA intends to cover a majority of the storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity under general permits initially. Coverage under general permits will gradually decrease as
other permits are issued pursuant to Tier II through Tier IV activities.
-------
FUTURE ACTIONS
General Permit Applicability
• Finalize baseline general permit for 1 2 States and 6 territories without NPDES authorization
• Assist NPDES authorized States in developing storm water general permits
Outreach
• Complete question and answer document
• Finalize Part 2 municipal permit application guidance
• Complete permit writers guidance documents
• Complete Reports to Congress
• Develop BMP/Pollutton Prevention guidance
• Conduct additional storm water permitting workshops
• Conduct permit wrtters workshops
• Complete group application process
• Prepare general information brochures
• Develop model mining general permit
• Target key professional organizations, trade associations and municipal organizations to develop
partnerships
• Solicit feedback on necessary training and assistance from key organizations
-------
Apnl 1992
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and
Compliance
Major Issues In Recent Regulations
Governing Storm Water Discharges
On Apnl 2,1992 the US. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published regulations addressing six major issues re-
lated to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) storm water program. (See 57 FR 11394.)
1. EPA’s Long-Term Permitting trategy
To regulate effectively the more than 100,CXX) storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity, EPA or the
authorized NPDES States first will issue Tier I baseline gen-
eral pemuts to regulatemostofthesedischarges. As pnon ties
and nsks are evaluated, Tier LI through IV permitting activi-
ties will occur. Tier II permits will be issued to storm water
discharges located in degraded or sensitive watersheds. Tier
III perrruts will be issued for priority industry classes, andTier
IV individual permits will be issued for pnorlty facilities.
The long-term permitting strategy also provides guidance for
the development of State storm water permitting plans to
provide public participation and to ensure implementation of
storm water permitting activities.
2. Minimum Monitoring and Repo ting
FIequirements
The rule gives permit writers additional flexibility to establish
monitoring requirements for storm water discharges associ-
ated with industrial activity. These permit requirements will
be established case by case, with a mirumum requirement that
industrial site operators inspect their facilities at least once a
year to identify pollutant sources and to certify that their
facilities are in compliance with their permits. Permit writers
continue to have the authority to require additional monitor-
ing on a case-by-case basis where appropriate.
3. Minimum Notice of In tent Requirements
The rule establishes a framework for permit writers to estab-
lish notice of intent (NOl) provisions for NPDES general
permits. Discharges use an NOt to apply for coverage under
an appropriate general permit issued by EPA or an autho-
rized NPDES State.
4. Part 2 Group Application Deadline
The rule extends the deadline for submitting Part 2 of
group applications from May 18, 1992 to October 1,1992.
5. Clarification of How Many Facilities Must
Submit Sampling Data in Part 2 of Group
Applications
The rule clarifies that at least 50 percent of the facilities
participating in a group of 4 to 20 members must submit
sampling data in Part 2 of the group application. For groups
with 21 to 99 members, at least 10 participants must submit
sampling data. For groups of 1 00 to 1,000 members, at least 10
percent of participating facilities must submit sampling data.
For groups with more than 1,000 members, no more than 100
participants must submit sampling data.
6. Codification of Transportation Act Deadlines
The Transportation Act of 1991 established several new appli-
cation deadlines for certain storm water discharges from
industrialactivityownedoroperatedby municipalities. EPA’s
rule codifies these extensions into the NPDES regulations.
Individual permit application deadlines for municipally
owned or operated industrial storm water discharges are to
be submitted by October 1, 1992, with two exceptions: l)
municipal facilities that have been rejected from group appli-
cations must submit individual permit applications no later
than the 180th day following the date of the denial, and 2)
facilities owned or operated by municipalities with popula-
tionsof less than 100,000 (excluding airports, power plants, or
uncontrolled sanitary landfills) currently are not required to
submit permit applications.
In addition, the Part 1 group apptication deadline for indus-
trial facilities owned oroperated by municipalities with popu-
lations of less than 250,000 has been extended from September
30,1991 to May 18, 1992. The Part 2 application deadline has
been extended from May 18, ‘1992 to May 17, 1993.
Dischargers apply for coverage under a general permit by
submitting a Notice of Intent (NOl). All NOIs must include,
at a minimum, the following basic information: the legal
name and address of the owner oroperator of the discharging
facility, the name and address of the facility that discharges
the storm water; the type of facility ordischarge; and the name
of the stream or water body that receives the discharge.
‘ eneral permits may specify additional information that
plicants must include in their NOIs.
A 4
For More In formation
Additional information about the NPDES
Storm Water Program and related issues is
available from the EPA Storm Water Hotline,
(703) 821-4823
APR 9 1992
Date
C .m C Dougherty. Director. Per 4 Di’v1 , OWEC
Pnnttd on recycLtd paper
-------
Overview
of the
Storm Water Program
9EPA
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Permits Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
April 1992
-------
STORM WA’1.i R PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA, also referred to as the Clean Water Act or
CWA) prohibit the discharge of any pollutant to waters of the United States from a point source unless the discharge is
authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge EIiinin tion System (NPDES) permit. EffOrts to improve water quality
under the NPDES program traditionally have focused on reducing pollutants in discharges of industrial process
wastewater and from municipal sewage trentm nt plants. Efforts to address storm water discharges under the NPDES
program have gesierally been limited to certain industrial categones with effluent limitations for storm water.
In response to the need for comprehensive NPDES requirements for discharges of storm water, Congress an ded the
CWAm 1987 to require the Environmental Potection Agency (EPA) to establish phased NPDES reqwrements for
storm water discharges. To implement these requirements, EPA published the initial permit application requirements
for certain categories of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, and discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems located in municipalities under a population of 100,000 or more on November 16, 1990
(55 47990). Storm water discharge permits will provide a h ni rn for monitoring the discharge of pollutants to
waxers of the United States and for establiithing source controls where nec 1y.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pollutants in storm water discharges from many sources are largely imoontrolled. The ‘National Water Quality
Inventory, 1990 Report to Congress’ provides a general I iwtt of water quality based on biennial reports submitted
by the States under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. The Report indicates that roughly 30% of identified cases
of water quality impairment are attributable to storm water discharges. 1 States identified a number of major sources
of storm water runoff that cause water quality impacts including separate storm sewers, construction, waste disposal,
and resource extraction.
INDUSTRIAL FACILiTIES COVERED
EPA has defined the term ‘storm water discharge associated with industrial activity’ in a comprehensive manner to
address over 100,000 facilities (see Aitachmezit I for a complete definition and Attachment II for a discussion of the
applicability of the definition). All storm waxer discharges associated with industrial activity that discharge through
municipal separate storm sewer systems are required to obtain NPDES permit coverage, including those which
discharge through systems located in municipalities with a discharges of less than 100,000. Discharges of storm water
to a combined sewer system or to a Publicly Owned Trc tnient Works (POTW) are excluded. Facilities with storm
water discharges associated with industrial activity include: manufacturing/industrial facilities; construction operations
disturbing five or more acres; ha rdous waste trentn 1t, storage, or disposal facilities; landfills; certain sewage
treatment plants; recycling facilities; powerplants; n ining operations; some oil and gas operations; airports; and certain
other transportation facilities. Operators of industrial facilities that arc Federally, State or municipally owned or
operated that meet the description of the facilities hated in 122.26(bXl4XiHxi) must also submit applications.
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1991
The Transportation Act of 1991 provides an exemption from storm water permitting requirements for certain industrial
activities owned or operated by municipalities with a population of less than 100,000. Such municipalities must submit
storm water discharge permit applications for only airports, powerplants, and uncontrolled sanitary landfills that they
own or operate, unless a permit is otherwise required by the permitting authority. The Transportation Act of 1991 also
revises group application dendlines for facilities that arc owned or operated by municipalities with a population of less
than 250,000.
INDUSTRIAL APPLiCATION OPTIONS
The storm water regulation presents three permit application options for storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity. The first option is to submit an individual application c’insisting of Forms 1 and ZF. The second
option is to participate in a group application. The third option is to file a notice of intent (NOl) to be covered under a
general permit in accordance with the requirements of an imued general permit. The following overview briefly
outlines each of these three options and the subsequent attachmts provide a more detailed explanation.
1 April 14, 1992
-------
A. INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS
Operators of facilities with storm water discharges associated with industrial activity that do not participate in a group
application or obtain coverage under a general permit, must submit an individual application consisting of Form 1 and
Form 2F. The information required in Form 2F includes a site drainage map, a narrative deacnption of the site
identifying potential pollutant sources, and quantitative testing data. I e are specific requirements for construction
activities and oil and gas operations and mining operations. See Mt r)u,wit I for additional information.
B. GROUP APPLICATIONS
The group application procedure is an option available for facilities that have iITTIilIT operations, waste streams and
other characteristics. Group applications reduce the burden on die regulated community by requinng the submission of
quantitative data front only selected members of the group. The group application is submitted in two parts. Pail I of
the application identifies all participants, provides facility specific information and proposes a representative sampling
subgroup. EPA will approve or deny members of the group based on the information provided in Part 1. Pail 2 of the
application consists of sampling data from each member of the sampling sabgroup identified in Part 1 of the application.
The applicable data reporting portions of Form 2F, along with the certification, should be completed. See Attachment
U for additional information.
C. GENERAL PERMIT - NO! REQUIREMENTS
Industrial storm water dischargets that submit a notice of intNit (NO!) to be covered by the g a1 permit are not
required to submit an individual permit application or participate in a giwp application, provided the diacharger is
eligible for the permit and an individual permit application is not required by the Director. Submitting an NO! is
significantly lees burdens than submitting an imd ivi4ual application or participating in a group application. The NOT
requirements for general permits usually address only general information and typically do not require the collection of
menilonng data. NOIs only may be submitted where applicable general permits have been isuned by the permitting
authority. EPA has proposed (56 f 40948, August 16, 1991) general permits in the 12 States without NPDES
authorization. EPA strongly encourages authorized NPDES States to issise general permits where general permit
authority is in place. As of April 1992, 29 of the 39 authorized NPDES States have general permit authority and a
number of other States are close to receiving such authority. See Anacliwi i t UI for additia al information.
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT APPLICATION DEADLINES
Type of Appflc*tlon
Deaufl1
• Ind_ividua_1
October 1, 1992
•Group .
All industrial activities except those
owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of
less than 250,000.
Industrial activities owned or
operated by a municipality with a
population of less than 250,000.
Pait l Part2
September 30, 1991 October 1, 1992
May 18, 1992 May 17, 1993
.
• General Permit NO!
Do.d1in established in the general
permiL EPA has proposed a 180
day deadline for its general permits
(or by the individual application
line, whichever is eaiiier).
2 April l4,1992
-------
MUNICIPAL APPLICATIONS
Munxcipal separate storm sewer is defined as any conveyance or system of conveyances that is owned or operated by
a State or local goveimnent entity designed for collecting and conveying storm water which is not part of a Publicly
Owned Tre rm nt Works. The application requirements do not apply to discharges from combined sewers (systems
designed as both a sanitary sewer and a storm sewer). Municipal separate storm sewer systems that are addressed by
the November 16, 1990 regulations include storm sewers located in one of 173 cities with a population of 100,000 or
more; located in one of the 47 counties identified by EPA as having large populations in unincorporated, uh ni, d
areas; and systems that are designated by the DLrector based on consideration of the location of the discharge with
respect to waxers of the Umted States, the size of the discharge, the quantity and natare of the pollutants discharged to
waters of the United States, and other relevant factors. The operator of a designated conveyance system will be notified
by the Director. Under the November 1990 storm water nile, those micipal separate storm sewer systems identi fled
must submit two-part applications. The first part requires information regarding existing programs and the means
available to the municipulity to control pollutants. In addition, part ruprires a field screening analysis of major falls
to detect illicit connections. Building on this information, the second part requires a limited amount of representative
quantitative data and a description of proposed storm water m2nlgement plans. See Attachment IV for a detailed
explanation of the two-part application process.
MUNICIPAL APPLICATIONS DEADLINES
Parti
Part2
Large Municipalities
November 18, 1991
November 16, 1992
Medium Municipalities
May 18, 1992
May 17, 1993
3 April 14, 1992
-------
ATTACHMENT I
INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
These requirements address storm waler discharges associated with industrial activity thai are not authorized by a general
permit and that are not included in a group application.
APPLICATION FORMS • Applicants for discharges composed entirely of storm water must submit
Forms 1 and 2F
Applicants for discharges composed of storm water and process wastewater
must submit Forms 1, 2C, and iF
• Applicants for new sources or new discharges composed of storm water and
non-storm water must submit Forms 1, 2D, and iF
• Applicants for discharges composed of storm water and nonprocess wastewater
must submit Forms 1, 2E, and 2F
• Authorized NPDES States may establish their own forms which are at least as
stringent as EPA ’s forms.
• Forms are available from State permitting authorities for facilities located in
NPDES authori States, or from EPA Regional Offices for facilities located
_____________________ in States without NPDES authorization.
FORM 2F REQUIREMENTS • Site map showing topography andlor drainage areas and site charactenstics.
• Eatimats of impervious surface area and the total area drained by each outfall.
• Description of significant materials esposed to storm wa ler, including current
materials management practices.
• Certification that oulfalls have been tested or evaluated for the presence of non-
storm water discharges that are not covered by a NPDES permit.
• Information on significant leaks and spills in last 3 years.
• Quantitative testing data for the following parameters:
- Any pollutants linuted in an effluent guideline to which the facility is
subjent
• Any pollutant listed in the facility’s NPDES permit for process wastewaler
• Oil and grease, pH. BOD 1 , COD, TSS, total phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite
nitrogen, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen
- Certain pollutants known to be in the discharge
- Flow measurements or estimates
- Date and duration of storm event.
l-1
-------
ATTACHMENT I
INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(Continued)
APPLICATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR
STORM WATER
DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED
wrrH INDUSTRIAL
ACTIVITY FROM
CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES
• Provide a narrative description of;
- Location and natore of construction actwity (including a map)
- Total area of the te and area to be excavated
- Proposed measures to contiol pollutaat in storm water discharges during
and after conalniclion operations
- Estimate of runoff coefficient and increase in impervious areas after
construction
- Name of receiving wal&.
• No quantitative sampling.
• Application d itilin
- 90 days prior to date construction begins.
• EPA has not developed * sfndhrd form for these discharges at this time (Form
2F is not required).
APPLICATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR
STORM WATER
DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED
WiTH INDUSTRIAL
ACTIVITY FROM OIL &
GAS OPERATIONS AND
MINING OPERATIONS
• Operators of oil & gas facilities are not required to submit a permit application
unless the facility:
- a discharge of a reportable quantity for which notice is required
under CERCLA or CWA in the past 3 years, or
- Contributes to a violation of a waler quality standard.
• Operators of active and inactive lrnn’ng sites are not required to submit permit
applications unless the discharge has come into contact with any overburden,
raw material, intermediate or finiabed products, byproducts, or waste products
located onsite (inactive coal mining operations released from SMCRA
performance bonds and non-coal mining operations released from applicable
Stale or Federal recl.m2tioa requiren ts after December 17, 1990 are not
required to submit permit applications).
AVAILABLE GUIDANCE
Guidance Mwu a1 For The Preparation of NPDES Permit
Applicationt for Storm Water Dwthargez ASWCiWEIJ wish
Indunrial Aahiry, available from the Storm Water Hotline, (703)
821-4823.
DEADLINE
October 1, 1992, or 180 days prior to comm ement of a new discharge.
I
1-2
-------
ATTACHMENT II
GROUP APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Facilities that discharge storm water associated with industrial activity had until September 30, 1991 to ifie a group
application ui lieu of submitting a complete individual application or a NO! to be covered by a general permit. The
Transportation Act of 1991, however, extmdnd the group application d dIin for certain industrial activities owned or
operated by a municipality with a population of less than 250,000. Facilities that are part of the same efflu it guideline
subcategory or with similar activities and operations are eligible to submit a group application.
The group application is submitted in two parts. Part 1 of the application was due by September 30, 1991, and Part 2 of the
application is due by October 1, 1992. These deadlines apply to all industrial activities except those owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of less than 250,000. For these facilities, Part 1 of the application is due by May 18, 1992,
and Part 2 of the application is due by May 17,1993. EPA will review Part 1 and approve or deny the members in the
group based on the information provided. Part I of the application must be oompkte, however, before a determination can
be made by EPA. Both pails are submitted directly to U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance (EN-336), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, regardless of whether or not the included facilities are
in a NPDES authorized State. The Transportation Act also addresses municipally owned or operated industrial activities that
have been rejected or denied from the group application process. Such facilities must submit an individual application or be
covered by a general permit within 180 days after the rejection or dpnial is made, or by October 1, 1992, which ever is
later.
EPA will take both pails of the application and formulate model permit language for members of that group. The complete
applications and model permit language will then be distributed to every NPDES authorized State or EPA Region (if the
State Is not NPDES authorized) in which participants are located . The State then reviewi the application and model permit
Language. The State may consider the application and model permit language when issuing permits (either individual or
general). The State may ask each or any of the applicants for more information on their facility and/or discharge if the
State needs additional information. EPA Regional Offices will follow these same steps for participants located in Slates
without NPDES authorization.
PART 1
• A list of participants by name, location, and precipitation zone
• A summary of each participant’s industrial activities
• An explanation of why the participants are sufficiently similar
• A list of significant materials stored outside by each participant and materials
management practices
• A list of representative dischargeru that will submit test data in Pait.2.
PART 2
• Quantitative testing data
- For groups of four to twenty members, 50 percent of the facilities must
submit data; for groups with 211099, a minimum of 10 dischargers must
submit quantitative data; for groups with 100 to 1,000 members, a
minimum of ten percent of the facilities must submit data; for groups with
greater than 1,000 members, no more than 100 facilities must submit data;
there must be two discbargers from each precipitation zone in which 10 or
more members of the group are located, or one discharger from each
precipitation zone in which nine or fewer members are located. Testing
requirements are described under 40 CFR 122.26(cX1XiXE) and 40 CFR
122.2 1(gX7).
11.1
-------
ATTACHMENT II
GROUP APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(Continued)
ADDiTIONAL
INFORMATION
A d& group application acco np nied by detailed information on how to
ComPlete S group application is available from the Storm Waler Hotline, (7D3)
821-4823. Technical ppofl with regard to mpling procedures is also
available from the hotlinc (Guidance Manual For The Preparation of
NPDES Permit 4pplicatiosu For Storm Water DLstharger
A.uociaied With Induitrial AclIWty).
DEADLINES
ALL INDUSTRIAL
ACTIViTIES EXCEPT
THOSE OWNED OR
OPERATED BY A
MUNICIPALiTY WITH A
POPULATION OF LESS
THAN 230,000
Part 1 Part 2
‘ 1,
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES
OWNED OR OPERATED BY
A MUNICIPALiTY WITH A
POPULATION OF LESS
THAN 250,000
May 18, 1992 May 17, 1993
I
11-2
-------
ATTACHMENT LII
EPA PROPOSED BASELINE GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
On August 16, 1991, EPA proposed far conim nt its draft baseline general permits (56 f 40993) which aie intended to
usually cover the majority of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity in 12 States and 6 temtories without
authorized NPDES programs. The public comn nt period closed on October 15, 1991. The Agency hopes to finA1i these
permits by the spring of 1992. The EPA permits will also serve as models for States with authorized NPDES programs.
As of April 1992, 29 of the 39 authorized NPDES States have authority to issue general permits and a number of other
States are close to receiving such authority. Facilities in authorizzd NPDES States should contact their State permitting
agencies to determine the statas of the general permitting program. Tse following table outlines conditions in EPA ’s
proposed baseline general permit.
TYPES OF FACILITIES COVERED • The proposed baseline general permits can cover the
majority of storm waler discharges associated with
industrial activity in a State. Storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that cannot be
authorized by general permits include those:
- With ezuting effluent guideline limitations for storm
water
- With an existing NPDES individual or general permit
for the storm water discharges
- That are or may reasonably be expected to be
contributing to a violation of a water quality standard
- From inactive mining or inactive oil and gas
operations occurring on Federal lands where an
____________________________________________ operator cannot be identified.
AREAS OF COVERAGE • EPA’s proposed general permits cover the following 12
States and 6 Territories:
- AlaikA , Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana,
Maa chusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
Amarican Samoa , the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana TRlandn , and the trust territory of the Pacific
on Ind ian lands in AL, CA, GA, KY, MI,
MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, NY, NV, SC, TN, UT, WI,
WY; from Federal facilities and Indian lands in CO
and WA; and from Federal facilities in Delaware.
-------
ATTACHMENT Ill
EPA PROPOSED BASELINE GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
(Continued)
NOTICE OF INTENT (NOl)
• After the general permits arc ssucd, a facility must
submit a NO! to be authorized by the general permit.
• NO! requirements aze much less burdensome than
individual permit applications and do not require the
collecticm of discharge sampling data.
• Fa iliti which discharge to a large or medium
aninicipal separate storm sewer system must also submit
signed copies of the NO! to the operator of the municipal
s y s t
• Operators of construction activities must also submit
signed copies of the NO! to State or local agencies
approving oedimt and erosion or storm water
menagement plans under which the constiuction activity
is operating.
PROHIBITIONS
• Prohibition on non-storm water discharges as a
component of discharges authorized by this permit.
(These discharges thould already have an NPDES
permit.)
• Prohibition on discharges that contain a ha.mrdous
substance in excess of reportable quantities established
under the CWA or CERCLA (see 40 CFR Part 117.3,40
CFR Part 302.4). These are priority discharges which
are more appropriately covered by individual permits or
other general permits.
POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
REQUIREMENTS
• Operators of all facilities covered by the permit must
prepare and imple t a storm water pollution
prevention plan.
• For isting facilities, plans must be completed within
180 days of the effective date of the permit, and provide
con liance with the plan within 365 days of the effective
date of the permit.
• For new facilities, plans must be completed and provide
for compliance prior to submitting a NO!.
U
1 11-2
-------
A11 ACHMENT Ill
EPA PROPOSED BASELINE GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
(Continued)
BASELINE PLAN REQUIREMENTS • Baseline pollution prevention plan requiremaits apply to
all facilities except construction acUvulea. (Additional
special requirements for selected classes of facilities are
discussed below.)
Baseline pollution prewanion plans have 2 major
objectives
- Identify potential sources of pollution
- Identify and unpiernent beat management practices to
reduce pollutants in storm water discharges.
ADDiTIONAL PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR
SALT STORAGE
• Facilities with storage piles of salt mast enclose or cover
the piles.
ADDITIONAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTAIN SARA TITLE III, SECTION 313
FACILITIES
• Special requirements only apply to facilities subject to
SARA Title Ill, Section 313 for chemicals that are
in the permit as ‘water priority chemicals.’
• Areas of the facility where large an mts of identified
chemicals axe used are enbject to spill prevention and
t.inm.nt requirements in iIar to spill prevention,
IthinfTwIt and countermeasure (SPCC) requirements
for oil h 1ling facilities.
• Certain liquid storage areas are subject to secondary
t2tnn requirements or alternative spill and integnty
testing requiren ts where secondary ccntginnwit is not
economically achievable.
ALTERNATWE POLLUTION PREVENTION
PLAN REQUIRThIENTS_FOR
CONSTRUCTION ACTIvITIES
• Plan requires identifying potential pollution sources and
XpI boat management practices.
.
• Boat management practices include sediment and erosion
controls and storm water man2genient controls.
• Plans must provide for compliance with approved State
or local Iinv.ijt and erosion control plans or storm
water n n*genwt plans.
m-3
-------
ATIACHMENT Ill
EPA PROPOSED BASELINE GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
(Continued)
NUMERIC EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
• Coal pile runoff: 50 mg/I TSS and 6-9 pH
• Storm water discharges that come into contact with Iiqwd
storage or handling equipment or SARA Title Ill, Section
313 facilities are subject to an acute whole effluent
toxicity limitation.
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
• 1 proposed general permits provide that most
dischargera covered by the permit must conduct annual
monitoring of eight conventional parameters. Facilities
subject to these ‘baseline’ monitoring requirements are
not required to report monitoring results but must
maintain records of monitoring data.
• Six ck’ne. of industries must sample twice a year and
report to EPA. These industries include: certain SARA
Title III, Section 313 facilities; primary metal facilities;
land disposal units; wood tn t facilities (wood
preservers) using chlorophenolic/creoeote formulations;
wood tr hI 1t facilities (wood prewvers) using
arsenic/chromium preservatives; and coal pile runoff.
• Operators of co& inin.Md storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from oil and gas
exploration and production operations, and from inactive
mining operations where a past or present mine operator
cvuv’t be identified, have the option of either monitoring
their storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity annually, or, in lieu of the monitoring, have a
Registered Professional Engineer certify that a storm
water pollution plan has been prepared and is being
implem’mt.d in accordance with the requirements of the
—L
DEADLINE FOR SUBMITI1NG NOI
• 180 days from general permit issuance (or by the
individual application d d1ine, whichever is earlier)
• Fornewdischarges,atleast3odayspnorto
co!nn c 1nmf of construction.
I
m•4
-------
ATTACHMENT IV
MUMCIPAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
The CWA requires that NPDES permits for discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems include a
requiremuit to effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges into the storm sewers, and controls to reduce the discharge
of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (including management practices, control techniques and system design
and engineering methods, and other provisions appropriate for the control of such pollutants). EPA or authorized
NPDES States may issue system-wide or jurisdiction-wide permits coveting ill discharges from * municipal separate
storm sewer system. The November 1990 storm waler final nile estahIiRh d requirements for a two-part permit
application designed to facilitate development of site specific permit conditions. The permit application requirements
provide municipal applicants an opportunity to propose appropriate m n gen t programs to control pollutants in
discharges from their municipal systems. This increases flexibility to develop appropriate permit conditions and ensures
input from municipalities in developing appropriate controls.
PART 1 • General information (name, address, etc.)
• Existing legal authority and any additional authorities ri 4 d
• Source identification information
• Discharge characterization including:
- Monthly mean rain and mow fall estimafrs
• Existing quantitative data on volume and quality of storm water discharges
- A list of receiving water bodies and existing information on the impacts of
receiving waters
- Field screening analysis for illicit connections and illegal dumping
• Characterization plan identifying representative outfalls for further sampling in
Part 2
• Description of existing management programs to control pollutants from the municipal
separate storm sewer and to identify illicit ccim ctions
• Description of financial budget and resources currently available to complete
Part 2.
Iv- ’
-------
Afl’ACHMENT IV
MUNICIPAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(Continued)
PART 2 • 1)e ition of adequate legal authority to control discharges, prohibit illicit
discharges, require compliance, and carry out inspections, surveillance, and
• Source identification uidicating the location of say major outfIh and identifying
facilities that discharge storm water associated with industrial activity through the
municipal separate storm sewer
• Discharge characterization data including
- Quantitative data from 5-10 representative locations in appiuved sampling plans
- For selected conventional pollutants and heavy metals, eatimtes of the annual
pollutant load and event — concentration of system discharges
- Proposed schedule to provide e in t s of seasonal pollutant loads and the mean
concentration for certain detected constituents in a representative storm event
- Proposed i mitoring program for representative data collection
• Proposed m nkgement program including descriptions of:
- Structural and source control meann thai ire to be implemented to reduce
pollutants in runoff from commercial and residential areas
- Program to detect and r ve illicit discharges
- Program to menitor and control pollut IItR from munucipal landfills, hazardous
waste tiesrn t, disposal, and recovery facilities; SARA Title 111, Section 313
facilities; and other priority industrial facilities
• Program to control pollutants in construction site runoff
• Estim t d reduction in loadings of pollutants as a result of the management program
• Fiscal analysis of necessary capital and operation and maintenance expenditures.
AVAILABLE
Guidance Manual for the &epariuion of PUn 1 of the NPDES Permit
GUIDANCE
4ppli cation for Discharges from Mwucipal Separate &orm Sewer
S rienu, available from the Storm Water Hotti , (7W) 821-4823.
IV-2
-------
ATTACHMENT IV
MUNICIPAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(Continued)
DEADLINES
• Large nnmicipal 8y8ten with a population of 250,000 or over:
(55 48073, Noverther 16, 1990, Appendices F and H)
Paul Part2
November 18, 1991 November 16, 1992
• Medium municipal sy en with a population of 100,000 to 250,000:
(55 f 48074, November 16, 1990, Appendices C and 1)
Paul Put2
May 18, 1992 May 17, 1992
IV-3
-------
APPENDIX A
DEFINiTION OF STORM WATER DISCHARGE
ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTWITY
(40 CFR 122.26(b)(14))
“Storm waler discharge associated with industrial activity” ns the discharge from any conveyance which is used for
collecting and conveying storm water and which is directly 1 t’ d to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage
areas at an industrial plant. The term does not include discharges from facilities or activities excluded from the NPDES
program under 40 CFR Part 122. For the categories of industries identified in subparagraphs (i) through (x) of this
subsection, the term includes, but is not limited to, storm water discharges from industrial plant yards; immediate access
roads and rail lines used or traveled by carriers of raw materials, manuf tiued products, waste material, or byproducts
used or created by the facility; material handling sites; refuse sites; sites used for the application or disposal of process
waste waters (as defined at 40 CFR 401); sites used for the storage and niaint w ce of material handling equipment; sates
used for residual trnaffii ’iit, storage, or disposal; shipping and receiving areas; manufacturing buildings; storage areas
(including tank farms) for raw materials, and intermediate and finished products; and areas where industrial activity has
taken place in the past and significant materials remain and are exposed to storm waler. For the categories of industries
identified in subparagraph (xi), the term includes only storm water discharges from all the areas (except access roads and
rail lines) that are listed in the previous s ”ce where material han 1Iing equipn it or activities, raw materials,
intermediate products, final products, waste material, by-products, or industrial imi hin ry ate exoosed to storm water . For
the purposes of this paragraph, material handling activities include the: storage, loading sad unloading, transportation, or
conveyance of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product or waste product. 1 term excludes
areas located on plant lands separate from the plant’s industrial activities, such as office buildings and accompanying parking
lots as long as the drainage from the excluded areas is not mixed with storm water drained from the above described areas.
Industrial facilities (including industrial facilities that are Federally, State, or municipally owned or operated that meet the
description of the facilities listed in this paragraph (i)-(xi) include those facilities designated under the provision of
122.26(a)(lXv). The foHowing categories of facilities are considered to be engaging in “industrial activity” for purposes of
this subsection:
(1) Facilities subject to storm water effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, or toxic
pollutant effluent standards under 40 CFR Subchapter N (except facilities with toxic poUutant effluent standards which are
excepted under category (xi) of this paragraph);
(ii) Facilities classified as Standard Industrial Classifications 24 (except 2434), 26 (except 265 and 267), 28 (except
283 and 285) 29, 311, 32 (except 323), 33, 3441, 372;
(us) Facilities classified as Standard Industrial Classifications 10 though 14 (mineral industry) including active or
inactive mining operations (except for areas of coal mining operations no longer meeting the definition of a reclamation area
under 40 CFR 434.1 1(1) because the performance bond issued to the facility by the appropriate SMCRA authority has been
released, or except for areas of non-coal mining operations which have been released from applicable State or Federal
reclamation requ1ren ts after December 17, 1990 and oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or tr tm iit
operations, or tranainiaaion facilities that discharge storm waler cont.minat d by contact with or that has come into contact
with, any overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished products, byproducts or waste products located on the
site of such operations; (inactive mining operations are mining sites that are not being actively mined, but which have an
identifiable owner/operator inactive mining sites do not include sites where mining claims are being maintained prior to
disturbances associated with the extraction, besieficiation, or processing of mined materials, nor sites where minimal
activities are undertaken for the sole purpose of maintaining mining claim);
(iv) Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, including those that are operating under interim
status or a permit under Subtitle C of RCRA;
(v) Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps that receive or have received any industrial wastes (waste that
is received from any of the facilities described tinder this subsection) including those that are subject to regulation under
Subtitle D of RCRA;
(vi) Facilities involved in the recycling of materials, including metal scrap yards, battery reclaimers, salvage yards,
and automobiles junkyards, including but limited to those classified as Standard Industrial Classification 5015 and 5093;
A-I
-------
I
APPENDIX A
DEFINiTION OF STORM WAThR DISCHARGE
ASSOCIAmD WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
(40 CFR 122.26(b)(14))
(Continued)
(vu) Steam electric power generating facilities, including coal handling sites;
(vui) Transportation facilities classified as Standard Industrial Classifications 40, 41,42 (except 4221-25), 43, 44,
45, and 5171 which have vehicle maintenance shops, equipment cleaning operations, or airport deicing operations. Only
those portions of the facility that are either involved in vehicle maint ance (including vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical
repairs, painting, fueling, and lubrication), equipment cleaning operations, airport dcâcing operations, or which are otherwise
identified under paragraphs (iXvii) or (ixHxi) of this subsection are associated with industrial activity;
(xi) Treaim8nt works treating domestic sewage or any other sewage sludge or wastewater tr t’n nt device or
system, used in the storage trenfnlPnt, recycling, and reclamation of municipal or do ic sewage, including land dedicated
to the disposal of sewage sludge that are located within the confines of the facility, with a design flow of 1.0 mgd or more,
or required to have an approved pretreatment program under 40 CFR 403. Not included are farm lands, domestic gardens
or lands used for sludge managen it where sludge is beneficially reused and which are not physically located in the
confines of the facility, or areas that are in compliance with Section 405 of the CWA;
(x) Construction activity including clearing, grading and excavation activities except: operations that result in the
disturbance of less than five acres of total land area which are not part of a larger common plan of develop t or sale;
(xi) Facilities under Standard industrial Classification 20,21,22,23,2434,25,265,267,27,283,285,30,31
(except 311), 323, 34 (except 3441), 35, 36, 37 (except 373), 38, 39, 4221-25, (and which are not otherwise included
within categories (il)-(x));
Note: The Transportation Act of 1991 provides an exemption from storm water permitting requirements for certain
industiai activities owned or operated by municipalities with a population of less than 100,000. Such municipalities
must submit storm water discharge permit applications for only airports, powerplants, and uncontrolled sanitary
landfills that they own or operate, unless a permit is otherwise required by the permitting authority.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
APPLICABILITY OF TUE DEFINITION OF “STORM WATER DISCHARGE
ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIViTY”
The term storm water discharge associated with industrial activity provided in Appendix A defines the scope of the
industrial facilities potentially included under the storm water regulation. In order to determine the applicability of the
regulation to a particular facility, the facility must examine its activities in relationship to the eleven categories of industrial
facilities described under 40 CFR Pail 122.26(bXl4). Facilities designated by five of the categories are identified by
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes (categories ii, iii , vi, viii, and xi); facilities designated by the other categories
are identified by a narrative description of the industrial activities (categories i, iv, v, vii, ix, and x).
Identification of the appropriate SIC code for each facility is the responsibility of the applicant. In some cases, the
applicable code may already have been identified for insinince, tax or accounting purposes. A complete listing of SIC
codes and a detailed description of the structure of classification system is provided in a 1987 publication titled Standard
Industrial Classification Manual published by the Office of Management and Budget. The manual is available at most major
libraries in the reference section or is available for ink from the National Technical Information Service in Springfield,
Virginia (order number PB 87-100012) (703) 487-4650. Some categories of industrial activity (categories i, iv, v, vii, ix,
and x) under the definition at 122.26(bXl4) are not defined by SIC code but are defined by a narrative description of the
activity. The activities described in these narrative categories should be carefully reviewed.
To determine if a certain industrial facility is required to submit a NPDES permit application for storm water, compare the
4-digit SIC code(s) assisted to each facility, with the SIC codes listed in 40 CFR Part 122.26(bXl4Xii), (iii), (vi), (viii), or
(xi). If the first two digits of the assigned code match with any two digit code in the regulations, then the industrial facility
is required to submit a storm water permit application. If the first three digits in the assigned code match with any three
digitcodesintheregulation,thefacjIityisreguJ, d. IfaUfourdigItsintheSICcodemafchanyofthcfourthgitco in
the regulation, the facility is regulated. Please note that the additional narrative descriptions in categories (iii), (viii) and (xi)
should also be considered in determining applicability of the regulations.
For industrial facilities that are not identified by the SIC code categories, determine if the onsite activity meets a description
of one of the narratives in categories i, iv, v, vii, ix and x. If the industrial activity for a facility is not included in 40 CFR
122.26(bXl4Xi)-(xi), the facility is not required to submit a NPDES permit application for storm water unless itis
specifically designated by the permitting authority and contacted directly. In cases where a facility is designated and require
to submit a storm water permit application, the permitting authority will contact the facility directly and inform them of all
requirements and deadlines.
It is important to note that the scope of the NPDES program only covers discharges from point sources. A point source is
defined at 40 CFR Part 122.2 as any discernibfr, confined, and discrete conwyance, including but not limited to, any pipe,
ditch, channel, :winel, conduit, well, discretefissure, coiuainer, rolling sto*, concentrated animal feeding operation,
landfill Leachase colicatlon i ateni, i ei or other floating croft frcvn w*ith pollutants are or may be discharged. This term
does no: include retwn flows from imgated agricufrure or agricultural storm ter runoff. If a facility has neither a point
source discharge of storm water to the waters of the United States nor to a municipal separate storm sewer system, the
facility is not required to submit a NPDES permit application for their storm water discharge.
B-i
-------
6
-------
DRAFT
1/30/92
Joint Statement of Purpose
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, NOAA
Ocean and Coastal Protection Division, OWOW, EPA
In 1988, NCAA and EPA signed a coordination agreement to promote
more effective management of resources, by increasing
coordination and cooperation between the National Estuary Program
(NE?) management conferences and State coastal zone management
programs (CZMPs). We share a common goal: to maintain and
enhance or protect the health of the nation’s coastal resources
To achieve this goal, all parties involved must gain a greater
understanding of each other’s programs. We are issuing this
Joint Statement of Purpose to clarify and further implement the
1988 agreement.
NEPs and CZMPS are complementary. Each represents a different
synthesis of techniques. CZMPs cover the coastal areas of entire
states, but frequently do not encompass whole watersheds. NEPs,
while focused on single estuaries, reach up a complete watershed.
CZMPs are permanently established programs, working to maintain
those goals they have achieved while continually striving for
incremental progress toward the future. The NEP is a
demonstration program, designed to achieve broad-based consensus
for management actions in designated estuaries. NE? management
conferences develop management plans (CCMPs) which are then
implemented by various existing programs. The plans contain
recommended actions but are not enforceable in and of themselves.
CZMPs, conversely (and as required by statute) must include
enforceable policies, i.e., “. . .State policies which are legally
binding through constitutional provisions, laws, regulations,
land use plans, ordinances or judicial or administrative
decisions, by which a State exerts control over private and
public land and water uses and natural resources in the coastal
zone.” (CZMA, §304(Ga)) As mature programs, CZMPs also have
important experience in networking with various levels of
government, in public involvement, in protecting resources, and
in exercising the power of Federal consistency review.
Management Conferences convened under the NE? are charged with
developing a plan for protection of natural resources and human
health in nationally important areas. CZMPS are a vitally
important tool for implementing Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans (CCMPs) and achieving mutual goals. To that
end, and as a means of achieving the goals and objectives of the
1988 NOAA-EPA Memorandum of Agreement, we are continuing to
improve our understanding of each other’s programs, and
identifying in this joint statement steps to promote our mutual
goal of natural resource protection.
-------
Incorporation of the CCMP5 into CZMPs
Wherever appropriate and possible, NOAA and EPA will encourage
incorporation of CCMPs into State CZMPs by a formal process
referred to as “program change.” The CZMA requires that these
program changes must be based on enforceable policies. CCMP
action plans may include state and local commitments to refocus
efforts under existing programs and authorities, as well as
recommendations which will require additior l authority. In the
latter case, the development of enforceable polcies must occur
prior to incorporation of the recommended action into the coastal
program. EPA and NOAA expect that States will adopt enforceable
policies in order to achieve CCMP goals. As noted in the
definition provided earlier, these policies can be not only State
level laws and regulations, etc, but also local management
mechanisms such as zoning codes over which the State has some
oversight.
Integrating these policies into Federally-approved coastal
management programs will provide an important avenue for
implementation of the CCMP. Once included, implementation may be
funded with Federal CZM dollars. While enforceable policies form
the basis of program changes, the effort as a whole may be
implemented by the CZM program. For example, where a new law has
been promulgated, CZM might implement a public education and
outreach program, as well as an enforcement effort.
Furthermore, once CCMP action plans are an approved part of a
CZMP, States may review Federal activities, permits and Federally
funded projects for consistency under the CZMA. Although §320 of
the Clean Water Act provides for Federal consistency review, CZM
consistency is well established and extends to Federal permits,
as well as to Federal activities and Federally funded projects.
To encourage the development of enforceable policies, EPA
intends, within the limits of existing granting authority, to
make additional funds available, beginning in FY92, to assist NEP
Management Conferences during their final year with the
development of enforceable policies and other activities and
mechanisms to effectively implement NEP management
recommendations. EPA’s guidance will include direction on the
development of enforceable policies and incorporation of action
plans into the CZMP.
Recognizing the need for expedited implementation, many of the
more recent NEP5 are striving to produce a draft CCMP in three
years. Should any new National Estuaries be designated, EPA will
continue to strongly encourage the early development of CCMPs.
Involvement of CZMPs in the Development of CCMPs
To increase effectiveness and to expedite the incorporation of
parts of the CCMPs into CZMPs, NOAA and EPA will work with the
2
-------
States to ensure that CZM program experiences and expertise are
brought to bear during development of NE? management plans. EPA
will require that where the lead state agency for the NE? is
different than the CZM agency, the two agencies develop an MOU
describing how the CZM and NE? programs will, be coordinated at
the state level.
Where the CZMP resides in the same agency as the NEP lead, EPA
will work with that agency to ensure that CZM staff are available
to assist the NEP committees. In response to EPA efforts, NOAA
will assist the CZMP in providing technical assistance, advice
and management input to the NEP.
CCMP Consistency Determination
In the 1988 MCA, EPA agreed, as a matter of policy 1 to submit
final CCMPs to the State CZM agencies for consistency review, per
§307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act. To implement this
agreement, EPA will provide written guidance on the consistency
process and requirements. Regional EPA offices will be
responsible for developing the consistency determination for the
final CCMP and providing it to the State CZM agency at least 90
days prior to the EPA Administrator’s decision on whether or not
to approve the CCMP. In any case where the CZM agency objects to
the consistency determination, EPA will attempt to resolve the
differences within the NE? Management Conference framework or
seek the assistance of the Secretary of Commerce prior to
approval of a CCMP. Under CZMA §307(c) (1.) (A), CZM programs
review any activity that affects any land or water use or natural
resource of the coastal zone, whether that activity occurs within
or outside the coastal zone.
Early involvement of CZM agencies in developing the CCMPs will
likely preclude any need. for a finding of inconsistency with the
coastal program. As a partner in the process, the CZM agency can
point out potential problems as early as possible, and solutions
can be negotiated. While the statutory consistency review must
still occur, it is the hope of both EPA and NOAA that the review
will be “pro forma,” all possible inconsistencies having been
addressed and alleviated at an earlier stage.
Coordination on Development of 6217 Nonpoir t Source Pollution
Control Programs
§6217, passed in 1990 with the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments, mandates a new level of cJoperation between State
water quality and coastal management agencies to address nortpoint
source pollution in coastal watersheds. This requirement for a
coordinated. program (a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program, or CNPCP) which utilizes best available management
practices implemented by existing programs, provides new
opportunities to work together. Nonpoint source pollution has
been an area of concern for all NEPs. Data collected, analyses
performed, and strategies selected by the CCMPS will be an
3
-------
important source of information for the development of State
CNPCPs. Funds available under §6217, as well as Clean Water Act
§319 might also be directed toward nonpoint source problems in
NEPs. EPA and NOAA will make every effort to ensure that
Management Conferences play a meaningful role in developing these
control programs.
Program Evaluations
To assist in coordination of the NEPs and CZM programs, CC! 11 will
invite participation, where appropriate, from EPA regional staff
in performing §312 evaluations of coastal zone management
programs. When 312 evaluations are scheduled in States that
contain NEPs, OCRM will notify EPA headquarters well in advance
of the evaluation dates. OCRM will ensure that concerns and
issues raised by EPA regarding CZMP-NEP interactions are reviewed
during the evaluation.
EPA will also invite OCRN, as well as representation from State
coastal management agencies, to participate in a project to
develop an evaluation and feedback process for the NEP.
Periodic Meetings
To continue implementation of the 1988 agreement between NOAA and
EPA, and encourage increased interactions between the programs,
OCRIT and OCPD have held a number of meetings, including a one day
joint workshop with OCRN, OCPD and EPA’s Nonpoint Source
Division, and several smaller meetings, as well as a workshop in
Seattle with academic representatives and state and local
practitioners. We plan to continue informal periodic meetings
between staff.
NEPOLICY. DOC
4
-------
OCPD-RECI0Ns BRANcH CfflEFS’ MEETING
February 4-6, 1992
Santa Fe, New Mexico
MEIcI1NG SuMMARY
-------
OCPD-REGIONB BRANCH CHIEPS’ MEETING
February 4-6, 1992
Santa Fe, New Mexico
MEETING SWOIARY
OCPD ACTION ITEMS
1. Send OCPD vacancy announcements to Regions. (Craig Vogt)
2. Revise draft final NEP Program F l 92 Funding Guidance to clarify
eligibility to receive funds and to note that while environmental
monitoring cannot be financed with post-CCMP funds, it may be funded by
base programs (Mark Curran)
3. Send Regions an information package on NE? nominations. (Mark Curran)
4. Identify potential changes to NE? workload model. (Mark Curran)
5. Conduct conference call on NE? conflicts of interest. (Mark Curran)
6. Draft a white paper, with Regional hel.p, on leveraging resources for
NEPs. (Mark Curran)
7. Meet with Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to discuss funding available
for estuarine studies and future work together. (Mark Curran)
8. Develop a questionnaire and send it to Regions to gather inputs for
ocean dumping workload model to help support FY 94 budget request.
(John Lishman)
9. Investigate potential changes to the ocean dumping workload model.
(John Lishman)
10. Allocate Fl 92 §301(h) and §403(c) Regional progr .m funds, evaluate
possible changes to distribution formulas, and distribute the analysis
to Regions for comment. (John Lishman)
11. Prepare paper on relationship between the §403 and §402 programs. (John
Lishman)
12. Distribute another draft of §301(h) rules to Regions for review prior to
workgroup closure. (John Lishman)
13. Assess overall program information management (e.g.. ODES and STORET),
soliciting Regional input to identify key issues and problems. (Karen
Klima)
14. Work with Regions to ensure that technical assistance workshops are well
focused. (Karen Kllma)
Page 1
-------
15. Conduct customized monitoring training programs for Regions. (Karen
Klima)
16. Send Coastlines mailing list to Regions for updating and identify
methods for Regions to submit articles for publication. (Karen Klima)
17. Monitor the development of EPA pollution prevention policies and
resulting program interaction opportunities. (Karen Klima)
18. Distribute the current draft EPA-COE MOU to the Regions for review.
(John Lishman)
19. Clarify laboratory certification program authorities and roles and
consider addressing them in the EPA-COE M01J. (John Lishman)
20. Design the planned enforcement training program to satisfy EPA
requirements for program-specific enforcement training. (John Lishman)
21. Conduct further analysis and begin preparing guidance materials on
capping policies. (John Lishman)
22. Send information on a general enforcement training course to Region IX.
(John Lishman)
23. Evaluate the potential next steps in developing bioaccumulation
guidance. (John Lishman)
24. Distribute draft proposed ocean dumping regulations (without preamble)
to Regions. (John Lishnian)
25. Begin developing guidance on the relation between the §404 and §103
programs by meeting with the §404 staff, identifying statutory and
regulatory concerns, and conducting a conference call with Regions.
(John Lishman)
26. Publish the Near Coastal Waters guidance and specify how NCW resources
will be allocated to the Regions. (Mark Curran)
27. Make the normal process of distributing documents from OCPD to the
Regions to be as follows: fax copies of key draft documents for review
and other important documents to (1) the Regional Division Director and
(2) to the Section Chief or other person designated by the Region.
(Craig Vogt)
28. Disseminate a revised list of OCPD-sponsored meetings and training.
(Craig Vogt)
29. Distribute a package of information regarding the ability of OCPD to
fund certain Regional training expenses. (Karen Klima)
30. Prepare FT 94 budget requests that are tied to the Narragansett mid-
Atlantic Bight initiative and link dredged material programs to
pollution prevention initiatives. (Craig Vogt)
Page 2
-------
31. Examine rapid bioassessment development. (Karen Klima)
32. Send copies of the Estuarine Health Guidance from the GuLf Program to
Regions. (Karen Kilma)
REGIONAL ACTION ITEMS
1.. Assist OCPD in providing information to support the development of the
FY 94 budget for NEPs.
2. Review draft #3 streamlined NEP guidance.
3. Assist in developing a draft white paper on leveraging resources for
NEPs. (Mario Del Vicario)
4. Send to Region IV the Region I Counsel’s opinion on conflicts of
interest for NEP committee members who may seek NEP consulting
contracts. (Gwen Ruta)
5. Meet with state SCS offices to discuss funding available for estuarine
studies and provide feedback to OCPD.
6. Review draft questionnaire regarding ocean dumping activities and submit
data required by final questionnaire.
7. Participate in NOAA natural resource damage assessment and remediation
activities, including technical advisory committees.
8. Identify communities likely to apply or reapply for a §301(h) waiver.
9. Submit information on benefits of secondary treatment for Narragansett
Bay to Karen Klima. (Gwen Ruta)
10. Send Karen Kilma a copy of Region I NEP success stories. (Gwen Ruta)
11. Inform OCPD of the effectiveness of civil penalties in enforcing OCPD
programs. (Charles App)
12. Send a copy of the EPA administrative order regarding program-specific
training requirements to OCPD. (Loretta Barsamian)
13. Keep OCPD informed of communications with OST regarding the Green Book,
Gold Book, sediments quality criteria, and sediments strategy by sending
copies of comments to Dave Redford.
14. Review draft Management Strategy regarding capping and submit comments
to OCPD.
15. Send schedules for developing Regional testing manuals to OCPD.
16. Identify the fax numbers for (1) Division Director and (2) Section Chief
or other individual designated to receive key draft documents for review
and other important documents.
Page 3
-------
17. Review revised list of OCPD meetings and training, and indicate ranked
priorities and likely participants (numbers and names, if available).
18. Assume that OCPD Regional Reviews will not duplicate OWOW reviews.
19. Send Estuarine Health Guidance to Karen Klima. (Fredrick Kopfler)
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1992
OCPD Programs: Updates, Status, Issues, and Priorities
Marian Mlay described the substantial progress made by OCPD since the meeting
in Charlottesville last year. She noted that:
• OWOW is now operating as a team.
• OCPD has completed its reorganization; is recruiting for new
section chiefs; plans to be fully staffed in the next few months;
and has completed its FY 92 agenda.
• The following major policy issues have been resolved: new NEPs,
post-CCMP funding, and NCW guidance. In addition, the Urban
Institute has begun its evaluation of the NEP program and OCPD has
streamlined the financial process for APDPs, §301(h), and §403(c).
• The major issues facing OCPD include funding for the ocean
dumping, §301(h) and §403(c) programs, allocation of Anderson time
and costs, and the overall FY 94 budget development.
• OCPD will continue to develop team work and cooperation among the
Coastal Zone, NEP-NCW, and non-point source programs.
• OCPD faces a challenge in meeting the needs of its customers
through technology application and transfer, and plans to increase
its outreach activities after hiring new staff in that area.
• Regional-HQ communications have improved, but we are working to
improve it further.
Regional Programs: Updates, Status, Issues, and Priorities
Regional representatives identified the following key concerns:
• NEP implementation
• The relationship between the §103 and §404 programs
• Leveraging other programs to help NEP implementation
• Management of contaminated dredged material
• Capping policy and dealing with the Army COE
Page 4
-------
• Potential reopening of §301(h)
• Linking NE?, ocean dumping, and other efforts to geographic
initiatives
• The lack of support for implementing ODBA when ocean dumping fees
and FTEs end
• Green Book implementation
• Coordination with SCS and other agencies
• Possible designation of fish disposal sites
• Development of environmental indicators
• National marine sanctuaries and their relationship to ocean
dumping
• Uncertainty about new NE? nominations
• Conflict of interest for contractors who serve on NE? boards
• The Watershed Protection Approach
• The status and future of the Coastal America program
• Coordination of program elements within OCPD
• Resources limitations
NEP
1. NEP Program FT 92 Funding Guidance. The Regions agreed that the
document was generally well done. The issues discussed included methods
of distributing funds for CCMP implementation; the budget for FY 92;
development of FY 94 budget; the schedule for plan submission and
review; the desire to progressively increase the speed of disseminating
funds at start of fiscal year, which could effectively increase the
available annual budget; excluding data collection from eligible funding
activities; and the need to keep the program focus clear.
2. ew NEPs. OCPD plans to publish a Federal Register notice on new
nominations by the end of February. The meeting notebook contains a
draft notice. The Regions will review the draft and submit their
comments to OCPD. OCPD will send Regions an information package on NEP
nominations by time of the publication of the Federal Register notice.
The Regions expect that states will nominate San Diego Bay, Lower St.
Johns River, Corpus Cristi Bay, and Lower Columbia River, in addition to
Morro Bay and Mobile Bay.
3. Streamlined NEPs. The draft streamlined NE? guidance is structured to
be compatible with (i.e., not require changes in) the current guidance.
Page 5
-------
The meeting notebook contains a copy of draft /3, for review by the
Regions. The Regions recommended that the draft and preliminary CCMPs
should be combined because of the effort required to draft a CCMP. The
participants also noted that complicated estuaries may be unable to meet
the four-year streamlined schedule and may not be ready for acceptance
into the NEP program. These estuaries could be addressed further under
the Near Coastal Waters program.
4. Program Evaluation. The Urban Institute is designing an NEP program
evaluation protocol. It will include interviews with NEP participants
and a project assistance panel composed largely of NEP program
customers.
5. FTEs for NEPs. Regions generally agreed that, contrary to initial
expectations, resource needs will not disappear when CCMPs are being
prepared. Changes to the workload model to reflect this development may
be possible pending a decision by OW. OCPD will prepare proposed
changes to the model in case change is possible. The discussants agreed
to the following suggestions concerning the model:
• The pricing factors for current NEPs should remain unchanged;
• The pricing factors for new NEPs should show level funding
throughout the streamlined fout-year process; and
• The appropriate minimum level of FrEs is two per year for non-
complicated (e.g., single state, small) estuaries. (All the
expected new NEPs, except the Lower Columbia River, should be non-
complicated estuaries.)
6. Conflicts of Interest. The group discussed the issue of whether and
when a member of an NEP committee, such as a technical advisory
committee, is ineligible to seek funding for consulting projects related
to the NEP. Several Regions and states have already addressed the
issue. After Region VI and OCPD gather additional information, OCPD
will schedule a conference call on the topic.
7. Leveraging Resources for NEP Implementation. OCPD is starting to meet
with other agencies to discuss NEP coordination, funding, and related
issues. OCPD’s priorities are NOAA, Department of Agriculture, SCS,
Fish and Wildlife Service, and FDA. Regions will meet with state SCS
offices and provide feedback to HQ on these meetings. OCPD, with
assistance from Region II, will develop a white paper on “leveraging”
resources to implement NEPs. The paper will discuss priorities for
coordinating with other agencies and within EPA. OCPD will circulate a
draft paper for Regional review and comment.
Ocean Dumping Workload Model
1. John Lishrnan described the model and recent analysis of the results of
the model using Regional data for FY 94 under various assumptions. The
results show that the program is underfunded and that a decrease in
funding from F? 90 levels is not warranted.
Page 6
-------
2. The participants made the following comments on the model:
• The inputs need to be updated and made more consistent across
Regions.
• Several activities are not reflected in the model, such as:
- - Ertforcement including illegal dumping surveillance and RCRA
enforcement assistance;
- - Searching for alternative sites;
-- Site recovery studies;
- - Marine debris; and
• - Emergency response.
• Perhaps the base allocation to the Regions should reflect these
activities.
• The pricing factors are too low, especially for medium and small
projects.
• Special initiatives should be eliminated as a funding category.
• The extramural dollar workload model favors the West Coast.
• The model should distinguish permit denials and approvals because
they require significantly different levels of effort.
3. The current model, despite its limitations, may be helpful for budget
defense purposes. To improve the use of the model, OCPD will develop a
questionnaire, with Regional assistance, to collect more consistent and
more clearly defined inputs. Subsequently, OCPD will investigate
modifying the model for future use.
4. OCPD will request that Regions provide brief year-end statements
regarding ocean dumping program accomplishments that track model inputs.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1992
Point Source Programs
1. The development of advanced risk assessment techniques may create
pressures for changes in the §301(h) and §403(c) programs.
2. karen Klima discussed the briefing for Administrator Reilly on national
wastewater management policies. (See meeting notebook.) The
Administrator desires to increase the use of risk-based approaches.
OCPD is concerned about the administtative difficulties involved in
reopening the §301(h) process.
Page 7
-------
3. Gwen Ruta noted that data from Narragansett Say demonstrated that
implementation of secondary treatment reduced sediment contamination
levels. She will provide OCPD with information about this case study,
which OCPD will include in its analysis of the benefits of secondary
treatment.
4. NOAA/DOJ prosecution of natural resource damage cases could create
opportunities to fund related EPA programs. Regions will therefore seek
to participate in NOAA natural resource damage assessment and
remediation activities, including technical advisory committees.
4O3 (c) and §3 0 1 ( h) Programs
1. The FY 93 budget for these programs is 38 percent less than the F? 92
budget.
2. John Lishman asked Regions whether the funds for these programs should
be distributed through a formula or on a case-by-case basis. Under the
former option, OCPD could distribute the funds faster. OCPD will
develop a draft budget allocation for Regional review and comment.
3. Funds will be allocated directly to Regions for §30 1(h), §403(c), and
APDPs without work orders. Because OCPD remains responsible for the
funds, Regions must report their use of funds at year-end.
4. Priorities for special projects include delegated states, information
management, use of information collected by ODES, and technical applied
research.
5. To justify increasing the F? 94 budget to F? 92 levels, OCPD will
develop data on Regional workloads, including permit renewals. OCPD
will also review the budgetary implications of opening up the §301(h)
process. OCPD may seek data from Regions for this analysis.
6. Other issues discussed include:
• GWA reauthorization proposals to extend §403(c) review to
estuaries;
• Development of §403(c) regulations;
• Need for guidance on the interface of §402 and §403, which OCPD
agreed to start developing;
• Focusing §603(c) review to critical issues such as sensitive
habitats and stressed waters; and
• The 30 percent reductions issue.
7. OCPD will circulate another draft of §301(h) rules for Regional review
prior to workgroup closure.
Page 8
-------
Information Management/ODES Policy
1. OCPD will assess data collection and use, starting with a problem
definition broader than “what is wrong with ODES.” OCPD will solicit
Regional input on the initial identification of key issues and problems.
2. This assessment will address the major issues discussed by the group,
including:
• How ODES should provide the data needed for decision-making;
• Data quality problems with STORET;
• Need for carefully focused training;
• The value and difficulty of establishing a minimum data set;
• Developing an effective data collection and use policy (e.g.,
linking data input into ODES with funding decisions);
• OCPD’s commitment to ODES; and
• The importance of data not gathered under EPA-sponsored projects.
Technical Information Transfer and Outreach/Education
1. OCPD seeks to be more systematic in identifying and disseminating
lessons learned over the past decade.
2. Karen Klima described OCPD’s proposed approach to develop a technical
assistance strategy. (See meeting notebook.) Regional representatives
questioned the desirability of using workshops to help identify specific
projects and goals and emphasized the importance of focusing on key
issues. One option suggested was to survey existing organizations
(e.g., NEP committees) or otherwise asking for suggestions from these
groups. The participants generally agreed that a strategy is needed and
that it should consider both the consumers and providers of technology
transfer.
3. Gwen Ruta agreed to sent Karen Klima a copy of Region I NE? success
stories.
Updates
1. Marine Debris. The participants agreed that future program priorities
should including developing a rationale for direct funding and
increasing national cohesion and consistency.
2. Coastal America. This program received no direct funding for F? 92 or
in the Fl 93 budget submitted to Congress. The Regions largely agreed
that while this program has helped in coalition building, it has limited
promise without direct funding.
Page 9
-------
3. Coastlines. OCPD will distribute the publication’s mailing list to
Regions for updating. OCPD plans to expand the publication’s focus and
identify how Regions may submit articles.
4. Watershed Protection Approach. John Pai described the status of the
WPA. He noted that over 50 projects have been proposed for the program
and that, while the sponsors strongly believe in the projects, others
have expressed reservations about the program. He recommended the
development of an internal EPA coordination committee as well as an
external coordination committee.
5. Gulf Program. The program has been reorganized to report to the
Assistant Administrator for Water. President Bush announced $21 million
for Gulf in the FY 93 budget; however, we have not received a listing of
how these funds are to be allocated to the Gulf Program The Program is
helping establish a Caribbean Institute, whose purpose remains to be
clarified. GAO is conducting a study that may provide the basis for
funding the Gulf program. The program faces the important task of
developing action plans for its primary issues (e.g., marine debris,
public health).
6. Water Civil Enforcement Penalties to Fund NEP/NCW. Charles App
discussed the possibility of using civil enforcement penalties to fund
NE? and NCW studies. He distributed a summary of EPA’s policy on the
use of enforcement penalties, which requires a close connection between
the violation and the specific study funded by the penalties. In some
cases the penalties may be used to fund NEP/NCW studies. Such studies
could be pitched as addressing pollution prevention, which can often be
funded by penalty funds.
7. Marine Sanitation Devices. Legislation before Congress (e.g., S. 1081)
addresses MSDs. Key MSDs issues include enforcement, problem
characterization, technological innovation, the availability of pump out
capacity, outreach to boaters and marinas, and the no discharge
justification. Regions noted that current problems include the lack of
program funding, the need for mobile pump out capacity because boaters
are unwilling to wait in line, and the lack of enforcement. The §404
program in Region 2 is requiring pump out facilities as a condition for
marina expansion permits.
8. Monitoring: Training and Assistance. OCPD is willing to conduct region-
based training programs, if requested, in addition to the program course
for Galveston NEP. Region IV requested training for the Florida NEPs.
9. OBD Research Needs/Strategy. ORD is developing issue papers covering
research needs over the next five years. OCPD is carefully watching the
development of these papers, as they do not appear to be directly linked
to OCPD’s research needs strategy.
10. Anderson . OCPD is developing a formal policy on chief scientist
certification and training. Chief scientist training is planned for the
early summer. The Division also plans to develop a more structured
scheduling process and a fee system for the Anderson .
Page 10
-------
11. Sea Level Rise. This potential problem is generally not addressed by
NEPs. Buzzards Bay is an exception.
12. NPS + CZM - 6217. This topic was also discussed briefly.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1992
Dredged Material
1. New EPA-COE MOU. John Lishman is working with the Army COE to develop a
new MOU to replace the existing MOIJ, which expires this July. OCPD
plans to make the MOU as specific as possible, which will reduce the
difficulties in developing regional MOUs. The Regions agreed with this
approach. OCPD will distribute the current draft MOU for Regional
review.
2. Training. OCPD plans to conduct training courses on the enforcement of
marine and coastal pollution laws. The courses will be designed for
program staff, not enforcement attorneys. OCPD will design the training
to satisfy EPA requirements for program-specific enforcement training
for staff involved in enforcement actions. In addition, a free slot in
a general enforcement training course by the Envirorunenta]. Law Institute
is available. OCPD will send information on this course to Region IX.
3. Proposed ODA Regulations. OCPD will distribute draft Ocean Dumping Act
regulations, without preamble text, to the Regions within a month. OCPD
plans to provide proposed changes before the ocean dumping coordinators
meeting, which is scheduled for the first part of April.
4. Sediment Quality Criteria. The sediment quality criteria are
approaching Red Border Review. OCPD is working with OST on several
areas, including the scientific uncertainty, field testing, the
extrapolation from acute to chronic toxicity, and the analysis of
economic or programmatic impacts. OCPD requested that Regions keep OCPD
informed of their comments on the criteria, contaminated sediments
strategy, draft Gold Book, and future revised Green Book.
5. Legislative Activity. Senate Bil]. 1081 is a likely vehicle for Clean
Water Act Reauthorization. A revised discussion draft of S. 1081
excludes wetlands and §404 issues and ou1d amend MISRA. Separate
legislation would reauthorize MPSRA with a $14 million authorization,
amending the Act only to allow seizure of boats violating the law. The
Studds bill to amend MPSRA would establish a new liability regime.
6. Regional Testing Manuals. OCPD requested that the Regions send the
Division their schedules for developing regional testing manuals.
Regions could use guidance on decision guidance values, bioaccumulation
tissue results, and capping.
7. Other Issues. Other topics discussed included defacto capping, lab
certification and testing procedures, and the accuracy and applicability
of the Addains mixing zone model.
Page 11
-------
§1O3/ 4O4 Interactio!
1. The interaction of the §103 and §404 programs creates a conundrum
because both programs limit the disposal of contaminated sediment based
on the availability of alternative sites. The Regions seek guidance on
how to weigh the choices between dumping in the ocean versus in a §404
area. OCPD will begin developing guidance on the best approach to this
issue by meeting with the §404 staff, identifying the relevant statutory
and regulatory concerns, and scheduling a conference call on the topic.
2. Private firms are promoting the use of upland wetlands in the San
Francisco Bay area to dispose of dredged materials.
3. The participants also noted the problem of the §404 program using
contaminated sites as reference sites, which reduces its level of
protection, and discussed the allocation of responsibility over dredging
issues between OCPD and the §404 program, including a suggestion to
place all §404 dredging issues into the §103 program.
Near Coastal Waters
1. NCW Guidance. OCPD will soon issue the CW guidance.
2. Policy Issues.
• Although several regions suggested deleting or modifying the
limitation of data collection and analysis to 20 percent of the
budget, OCPD will retain the restriction, with a limited
opportunity for reopening.
• The guidance uses “must” to refer to process issues and “should”
to refer to the substantive issues.
• OCPD will continue to approve annual regional funding plans
because of the newness of the guidance and historical “ambiguity”
of the program. Maria.n Mlay noted, however, that the §301(h),
§403(c), and APDP programs, have been delegated to the Regions.
$ OCPD intends that NCW efforts focus on choosing a few high
priority sites from the Regional strategy and focusing regional
efforts at those sites.
3. Funding Issues.
• The Regions expressed different preferences for allocating NCW
resources to the Regions. They did not reach a consensus on a
specific formula.
• The group, however, agreed that OCPD would make F? 92 budget
decisions within a week or so, after consulting with Loretta
Bars am ian
Page 12
-------
• OCPD will compare data used for this allocation (e.g., population
figures) to be consistent with data used by wetlands program to
allocate its resources and consider using their formula to make
adjustments for the length of the Alaska coastline.
• The discussants agreed that the resource allocation formula would
be more important in the future if the total NCW budget increases.
Program Management
1. Document Dissemination. The group discussed the problem of
disseminating key documents to Regional staff. OCPD agreed to fax
copies of key draft documents for review and other important papers to
(1) the Division Director and (2) to the Section Chief or other person
designated by the Regions. The Regions will identify the fax numbers
for each of these individuals.
2. OCPD-Sponsored Meetings. The participants reviewed the schedule of
OCPD-sponsored meetings and made some adjustments. OCPD will send a
revised list to the Regions.
3. Training Funding. Parts of training costs may be paid for with AC&C
funds. For OCPD-sponsored training sessions, OCPD will generally fund
the food and lodging. The use of AC&C funds is possible only upon
documentation of the training program content and costs. OCPD will send
a package of information concerning these requirements to the Regions.
PIRTICIPANT8
OCPD: Marian Mlay, Craig Vogt, Mark Curran, Karen
Klima, John Lishman, Dave Redford
OWOW: John Pai
Region I: Gwen Ruta
Region II: Mario Del Vicario
Region III: Rich Pepino, Charles App
Region IV: E. Stallings Howell, 8 Crum
Region VI: Richard Hoppers, George Horvath
Region 1X: Loretta Barsamian
Region X: Jack Gakstatter
Gulf of Mexico Program: Fredrick Kopfler
ICF Incorporated: Mike Berg
Page 13
-------
EPA
‘)f (ice of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
4/20/92
NOTE :
SUBJECT: Action Items from OCPD-Regions Branch Chiefs’ Meeting in Santa Fe
FROM: Marian Mlay
TO: OCPD and Regional Branch Chiefs
I have attached a list of the action items that fell to OCPD at the Branch Chiefs’
meeting in February, along with the actions we undertook, or plan to undertake, in response
to the items. I have attached a list of the action items that fell to the Regions as well. In
preparation for the OWOW National Meeting in May, I would like each regional Branch
Chief to look through your Region’s respective action items and update OCPD on actions
taken to date, or the responses you are planning.
Please have your responses to Macara Lousberg, the Program Analyst on my staff, by
COB Friday, April 24. As you can see by looking at the responses OCPD prepared for its
action items, you do not need to go into a lot of detail. I would just like a brief description
of progress on each item. If you have any questions, you can call Macan at 202-260-9109.
Thanks to all of you, and I look forward to seeing you at the National Meeting.
an Mlay
Attachments
-------
OCPD-REGIONS BRANCH CHLFJ’S’ MEETING
February 4-6, 1992
Santa Fe, New Mexico
OCPD ACTION ITEMS AND RESPONSES
Action: Send OCPD vacancy announcements to Regions. (Craig Vogt)
Response: Done. Sent out by Branch Chiefs.
2. Action: Revise draft final NE? Program FY92 Funding Guidance to clarify
eligibility to receive funds and to note that while environmental
monitoring cannot be financed with post-CCMP funds, it may be funded
by base programs. (Mark Curran)
Response: Final NE? FY92 Funding Guidance was issued by OCPD on February 18,
1992. The guidance included information on the development of annual
workplans, including funding targets for FY92; post-CCMP funding; and
Action Plan Demonstration Projects.
3. Action: Send Regions an information package on NEP nominations. (Mark
Curran)
Response: The information package for new NEP nominations was distributed to the
Regions on February 20, 1992. The package included the NE? Primer,
section 320 of the Clean Water Act, copies of the Guidance on Governors
Nominations to the NE?, and guidance on a streamlined NE? process.
4. Action: Identify potential changes to NE? workload model. (Mark Curran)
Response: Discussions at the meeting in Santa Fe in February resulted in consensus
that changes to the NE? workload model were not necessary. This
decision may need to be revisited once new estuaries are selected,
depending on their geographic location.
5. Action: Conduct conference call on NEP conflicts of interest. (Mark Curran)
Response: Region 4 General Counsel has submitted a memorandum to Headquarters
OGC asking for an opinion concerning conflict of interest in the NE?.
The issue concerns parties participating on NEP committees who may also
be candidates for funding under the NEP. Headquarters 0CC has not
responded yet.
-------
6. Action: Draft a white paper, with Regional help, on leveraging resources for
NEPs. (Mark Curran)
Response: Mark Curran is participating on the Operational Programs Support
Subgroup, part of the Headquarters Watershed Protection Approach Team
charged with identifying actions to be taken to promote and support
watershed programs within EPA. As part of this Subgroup, Mark has
proposed using an NEP CCMP as a piot” for developing commitments
from the base programs to take action.
7. Action: Meet with Soil Conservation Service to discuss funding available for
estuarine studies and future work together. (Mark Curran)
Response: We have not yet scheduled a meeting with SCS.
8. Action: Develop a questionnaire and send it to Regions to gather inputs for ocean
dumping workload model to help support FY94 budget request. (John
Lishman)
Response: Questionnaire prepared and circulated in draft. Final questionnaire to be
distributed the week of 4/13.
9. Action: Investigate potential changes to the ocean dumping workload model. (John
Lishman)
Response: Discussed workload model issues at Santa Fe Branch Chiefs meeting and
at Ocean Dumping Coordinators meeting in April. Potential changes to
model will be evaluated following inputs of Regional data to model.
10. Action: Allocate FY92 301(h) and 403(c) Regional program funds, evaluate
possible changes to distribution formulas, and distribute the analysis to
Regions for comment. (John Lishman)
Response: 403 and 301(h) program funds have been distributed to Regions.
11. Action: Prepare paper on relationship between the 403 and 402 programs. (John
Lishman)
Response: Have discussed need for guidance on interface of 402 and 403 programs
with OWEC staff. Will initiate work to issue joint guidance memo on this
subject from OWOW/OWEC.
12. Action: Distribute another draft of 301(h) rules to Regions for review prior to
workgroup closure. (John Lishman)
-------
Response: DO data on Gloucester has been received and evaluated. Preparing
another draft of regulations for circulation to Regions.
13. Action: Assess overall program information management (e.g., ODES and
STORET), soliciting Regional input to identify key issues and problems.
(Karen Klima)
Response: Developing problem statement and approach, which will be ready for
Regional input in June.
14. Action: Work with Regions to ensure that technical assistance workshops are well
focused. (Karen Klima)
Response: Seeking Regional input to scoping effort. More to come at the OWOW
National Meeting in May.
15. Action: Conduct customized monitoring training programs for Regions. (Karen
Klima)
Response: Training in Galveston scheduled in July, 1992; Long Island Sound being
scheduled now; discussions on Albemarle-Pamlico are underway;
discussions on Florida NEPs are underway, looking at late FY92fearly
FY93.
16. Action: Send Coastlines mailing list to Regions for updating and identify methods
for Regions to submit articles for publication. (Karen Klima)
Response: Will be mailed out by the end of April. In the future, calls for articles
from the Regions will be sent via fax.
17. Action: Monitor the development of EPA pollution prevention policies and
resulting program interactions opportunities. (Karen Klima)
Response: Pollution prevention policy and latest newsletter will be provided at
OWOW National Meeting in May.
18. Action: Distribute the current draft EPA-COE MOU to the Regions for review.
(John Lishman)
Response: Draft MOU distributed.
19. Action: Clarify laboratory certification program authorities and roles and consider
addressing them in the EPA-COE MOU. (John Lishman)
Response: Developing draft MOU with COE. Will discuss inclusion of lab
certification issue in the MOU.
-------
20. Action: Design the planned enforcement training program to satisfy EPA
requirements for program-specific enforcement training. (John Lishman)
Response: Reviewed and commented on draft training manual to assure it focuses on,
and meets, program-specific needs.
21. Action: Conduct further analysis and begin preparing guidance materials on
capping polices. (John Lishman)
Response: Discussed capping issues at April Ocean Dumping Coordinators meeting.
Agreed that joint guidance with COE will be developed.
22. Action: Send information on a general enforcement training course to Region IX.
(John Lishman)
Response: Information sent.
23. Action: Evaluate the potential next steps in developing bioaccumulation guidance.
(John Lishman)
Response: Discussed issue at Ocean Dumping Coordinators meeting in April. Will
coordinate with NERL on guidance for dioxin.
24. Action: Distribute draft proposed ocean dumping regulations (without preamble)
to Regions. (John Lishman)
Response: Draft regulations distributed in March and discussed at April Ocean
Dumping Coordinators meeting.
25. Action: Begin developing guidance on the relation between the 404 and 103
programs by meeting with the 404 staff, identifying statutory and
regulatory concerns, and conducting a conference call with Regions. (John
Lishman)
Response: Discussed 4041103 interface with Wetlands Division staff. Also discussed
issue with Regional ocean dumping coordinators at April meeting. Will
contact Region I to see if further action is needed.
26. Action: Publish the Near Coastal Waters guidance and specify how NCW
resources will be allocated to the Regions. (Mark Curran)
Response: Final NCW FY92 Funding Guidance was issued by OCPD in March
1992. The guidance included information on the development of NCW
Regional Strategies and annual workplans, as well as a allocation formula
for developing annual funding targets.
-------
27. Action: Make the normal process of distributing documents from OCPD to the
Regions to be as follows: fax copies of key draft documents for review
and other important documents to (1) the Regional Division Director and
(2) to the Section Chief or other person designated by the Region. (Craig
Vogt)
Response: Fax numbers of Division Directors and Section Chiefs or other designated
staff have been distributed to OCPD secretaries.
28. Action: Disseminate a revised list of OCPD-sponsored meetings and training.
(Craig Vogt)
Response: List to be sent out by the end of April, 1992
29. Action: Distribute a package of information regarding the ability of OCPD to fund
certain Regional training expenses. (Karen Klima)
Response: As discussed during the March conference call, there is no opportunity for
using AC&C funds instead of S&E funds for travel of any kind.
However, travel for training purposes can be paid for with S&E funds
from an object class different from routine travel, giving relief to the
travel ceiling.
30. Action: Prepare FY94 budget requests that are tied to the Narragansett mid-
Atlantic Bight initiative and link dredged material programs to pollution
prevention initiatives. (Craig Vogt)
Response: An FY94 budget initiative was prepared and submitted that addresses our
ocean programs including ocean dumping, 403, 301(h), and marine debns.
The focus was on ecological risk decision-making, but also included
pollution prevention. (It was not tied to the mid-Atlantic Blight initiative)
31. Action: Examine rapid bioassessment development. (Karen Klima)
Response: Plans are underway to meet with Region III to discuss their concerns.
Discussions with ORD and OST on how to define biological integrity in
coasts will continue.
32. Action: Send copies of the Estuarine Health Guidance from the Gulf Program to
Regions. (Karen Klima)
Response: Will be mailed out by the end of April.
-------
31. ExamIne rapid bioassessment development. (Karen Klima)
32. Send copies of the Estuarine Health Guidance from the Gulf Program to
Regions. (Karen Klima)
REGIONAL ACTION ITEMS
1. Assist OCFD in providing information to support the development of the
FY 94 budget for NEPs.
2. Review draft 13 streamlined NE? guidance.
3. Assist in developing a draft white paper on leveraging resources for
NEPs. (Mario Del Vicario)
4. Send to Region IV the Region I Counsel’s opinion on conflicts of
interest for NE? committee members who may seek NE? consulting
contracts. (Gwen Ruta)
5. Meet with state SCS offices to discuss funding available for estuarine
studies and provide feedback to OCPD.
6. Review draft questionnaire regarding ocean dumping activities and submit
data required by final questionnaire.
7. Participate in NOAA natural resource damage assessment and remediation
activities, Including technical advisory committees.
8. Identify communities likely to apply or reapp].y for a §301(h) waiver.
9. Submit information on benefits of secondary treatment for Narragansett
Bay to Karen Klima. (Gwen Ruta)
10. Send Karen Klima a copy of Region I NEP success stories. (Gwen Ruta)
11. Inform OCPD of the effectiveness of civil penalties In enforcing OCPD
programs. (Charles App)
12. Send a copy of the EPA administrative order regarding prograrn.speciflc
training requirements to OCPD. (Loretta Barsamian)
13. Keep OCPD informed of communications with OST regarding the Green Boc’k,
Gold Book, sediments quality criteria, and sediments strategy by sending
copies of comments to Dave Redford.
14. Review draft Management Strategy regarding capping and submit comments
to OCPD.
15. Send schedules for developing Regional testing manuals to OCPD.
16. Identify the fax numbers for (1) Division Director and (2) Section Chief
or other Individual designated to receive key draft documents for revie
and other important documents.
Page 3
-------
17. Review revised list of OCPD meetings and training, and indicate ranked
priorities and likely participants (numbers and names, if available).
18. Assume that OCPD Regional Reviews will not duplicate OWOW reviews.
19. Send Estuarine Health Cuidance to Karen Klima. (Fredrick Kopfler)
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1992
OCPD Programs: Updates, Status, Issues, and Priorities
Marian Mlay described the substantial progress made by OCPD since the meeting
in Charlottesville last year. She noted that:
• OWOW is now operating as a team.
• OCPD has completed its reorganization; is recruiting for new
section chiefs; plans to be fully staffed in the next few months;
and has completed its F? 92 agenda.
• The following major policy issues have been resolved: new NEPs,
post.CCMP funding, and NC J guidance. In addition, the Urban
Institute has begun its evaluation of the NEP program and OCPD has
streamlined the financial process for APDPs, §301(h), and §403(c).
• The major issues facing OCPD include funding for the ocean
duznptng, §301(h) and §403(c) programs, allocation of Anderson time
and costs, and the overall FY 94 budget development.
• OCPD will continue to develop team work and cooperation among the
Coastal Zone, NEP-NCW, and non-point source programs.
• OCPD faces a challenge in meeting the needs of its customers
through technology application and transfer, and plans to increase
its outreach activities after hiring new staff in that area.
• Regional.HQ communications have Improved, but we are working to
improve it further.
Regional Programs: Updates, Status, Issues, and Priorities
Regional representatives identified the following key concerns:
• NEP implementation
• The relationship between the §103 and §404 programs
• Leveraging other programs to help NEP implementation
• Management of contaminated dredged material
• Capping policy and dealing with the Army COE
Page 4
-------
Guidance under Development for the
MPRSA Section 103 Dredged Material Ocean Dumping Program
Dredged Material Permit Review Guidance
• Intended to assist EPA Regional Personnel when Reviewing Corps of Engineer
dredged material ocean dumping permits
• Significantly revised from draft reviewed by regions in the Fall 1990
• Distributed to regions at Ocean Dumping Coordinators meeting on the week
of Apnl 6th
• Comments due by May 18th
• Final by end of FY
Framework for Evaluating Disposal Alternatives (Phase I)
• Describes the characteristics of a range of disposal options and what should• be
considered when determining the environmental acceptability of an alternative
• Prepared jointly by EPA and the COE
• Reviewed by regions in the Fall of 1991
• Final by end of FY
Disposal Alternative Selection Guidance (Phase II)
• Describe how the COE makes a disposal site selection decision, especially in
regard to beneficial use decisions
• Will provide EPA with the information to work within the CUE system to
promote more beneficial uses
• Will be prepared jointly by EPA and the CUE
• Will begin work in June 1992
Site Designation, Management and Monitoring Guidance
• Describes policies, roles and responsibilities and procedures for designating,
managing and monitoring ocean disposal sites for dredged material
• Prepared jointly by EPA and CUE
• Draft reviewed by regions in spring of 1991
• Significant revisions have been made; revisions were reviewed by HQs;
additional revisions are necessary before another field review to shorten and
eliminate redundancies
• Next field review expected in June 1992
1
-------
Capping Guidance
• Describe site characteristics, material (both dredged and cap material)
characteristics, and monitoring requirements necessary for successful capping
operations
• Will be prepared jointly by EPA and COE
• Will begin in May 1992
Dioxin Guidance
• Describe methods for evaluating sediments suspected of contamination with
Dioxin
• Will be prepared jointly by EPA and COE
• Will begin in June 1992
Dredged Material Reference Document
• Provides an annotated bibliography of dredged material related documents
• Documents therein considered “essential” (based on interviews with regio s)
will be provided to regions
• Draft reviewed by regions in the Fall of 1990
• Camera-ready final is in preparation
• Final distributed in July 1992
Fish Waste and Asbestos Guidance
• On hold due to workload on regulations and other major guidance documents
• Fish waste guidance needs OWEC review
• Both documents were reviewed by regions in the Fall of 1990
2
-------
DREDGED MATERIAL SITE REG ISSUES
Scope
1. ODBA
0 lawsuit says we must explain why we treat dredged
material differently —— ODBA can help with our rationale
since it essentially precludes by statute the dumping of non-
dredged material.
Revised regs will codify, without amplification, ODBA
statutory provisions and use as a rationale as to why we
are focussing on dredged material and not making the same
changes for non-dredged material.
2. MPRSA Amendments
O Since MPRSA has been amended (tightened up) since the 1977
regs with regard to emergency permits, LLRW, and nied waste;
if these changes are left out of regs we may get adverse
comments from environmental groups.
Revised regs will codify, without amplification, the
statutory amendments.
3. Sediment Quality Criteria
o Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC) are scheduled to be proposed
for 5 compounds sometime this year. The current regulations
do not address the use of SQC.
Revised regs will include a discussion of SQC and their
potential application in the preamble. Would not revise
regulations to include SQC at this time.
Policy
4. Dredged Material Permit Review
O The Corps, as lead agency for permitting dredged material
disposal, will develop and issue section 103 permits. EPA,
as lead agency fgr enforcing against violations of MPRSA
through assessing administrative penalties or making criminal
referrals, will review Section 103 permit language for
enforceability.
EPA and Corps headquarters will develop model boilerplate
permit language for use by Regions and Districts in
-------
standard-issue permits. Regions arid Districts can modify
or add to model.
If project or site conditions are such that special permit
conditions are required to comply with MPRSA, EPA and the
Corps will agree to additional permit conditions and EPA
will review the draft permit.
5. Site Management Roles
0 The purpose of site management is to confirm that disposal is
occurring in compliance with permit terms and to ensure the
ongoing environmental integrity of the site and surrounding
areas.
Management of a site consists of:
(1) Regulating times, rates, and methods of disposal, and
quantities and types of materials disposed of, through site
restrictions and issuance or modifications of permits.
(2) Developing and implementing effective environmental
monitoring programs for the site;
(3) Initiating enforcement actions for violations of the Act
and regulations developed under it;
(4) Modifying permits and site designations as necessary to
ensure environmentally sound disposal practices;
EPA has primary responsibility for site designation. The
Corps has primary responsibility for permit issuance. EPA
and the Corps share responsibility for environmental impact
assessment and compliance monitoring. The revised regs will
reflect the division of responsibility.
6. Voluntary ElS Policy
o tinder the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) federal
agencies are required to assess the environmental impacts of
their decisions. EPA maintains a voluntary policy of
preparing Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for all ocean
disposal site designations, regardless of size or duration.
o In the past we have sought review of this voluntary policy
and recommended that it be reconsidered. The recommendation
was not approved.
We may again approach the Administrator and recommend that
the strict requirement of an EIS for every site be
reconsidered. EIS’s would still be conducted for certain
2
-------
sites (e.g. large projects, environmentally sensitive areas),
but for others (e.g. single episode) we would conduct a lower
level effort such as a FONSI.
7. Revise Exclusionary Criteria
0 The current regulations have criteria [ at 40 CFR 227.13(b)]
by which dredged material can be exempted from effects-based
testing. These criteria (known as the exclusionary criteria)
kick in if the material to be dredged is upredominantly
composed of sand, gravel, rock, shell, etc., and is found in
areas of high wave energy, or is suitable for beach
nourishment, or is far removed from sources of pollution.
O Because these exclusionary criteria are somewhat vague there
is the potential for abuse.
If supporting data is available, consider deleting the
“predominately sand” and the beach nourishment exclusion.
The “far removed” exclusion would remain.
8. Waiver Criteria
O Existing regs repeat statutory criteria without elaboration;
due to possibility of there being waiver request in future
due to revised testing procedures, more guidance on waivers
may be necessary -- issue has been sensitive with COE in
past.
o Question is what basic approach to criteria: (1) absolute
environmental criteria based on 00 impacts; (2) relative
environmental criteria based on impacts of OD vs. land-based
alts; (3) Relative criteria considering benefits of dredging
project (including economics) vs. impacts of dumping.
Revised regs will adopt approach based on absolute
environmental criteria based on 00 impacts, subject to
showing there is reasonable basis for COE’s assertion
alternative disposal methods are unavailable.
0 Note direct linkage to issue (9) -— if approach on issue 9
changes, will have to revisit this.
9. Relation of Waivers and Mitigation
0 Due to changes in testing procedures, it is more conceivable
that some dredged material might fail criteria.
0 Existing regs do not address issue of whether ocean dumping
3
-------
criteria can be met by mitigation (e.g., capping) or whether
a waiver is required, with mitigation being relevant to issue
of whether a waiver is approved:
OK for OD OK for OD OK for 00
7
OD—. ’lab tox’---> mitigation in waiver
testing decision No OD
Issue: Where to put the waiver bar in this process?
Revised regs will allow the use of mitigation to meet the
ocean dumping criteria without going through waiver.
10. Need
0 MPRSA §103 provides that COE is to make an independent
determination of need to ocean dump based on certain specific
factors laid out in §103.
Existing regs “need” criteria do not reflect this or offer
guidance specific to dredged material alternatives.
Revised regs will rewrite “need” criteria for dredged
material to require COE to consider alternatives but do not
dictate how the weighing of alternatives is to be done.
Technical
11. Initial Mixing - - time duration
O Existing reg uses a 4 hr mixing zone, a number which is not
based on scientific knowledge and which is suspect; info to
set a new number does not exist.
Approach would be to revise mixing zone, probably to one
hour, based on ADDAMS model or Gold book.
12. Bioassay Species Selection
0 Existing regs require bioassay testing but is silent on what
types of species to be tested.
-------
Revised regs would name specific species required to be
tested (e.g. ainphipod, mysid).
13. Clarifications to the LPC
0 Existing regulations use term “Limiting Permissible
Concentration” (LPC) which requires consideration of QC,
water-column toxicity, benthic toxicity, and benthic
bioaccuinulation conditions when making a decision on the
suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal.
Revised regs removes term “LPC” and simply refers to each of
the four conditions separately as criteria.
14. Water-Column Testing
O Existing regs require water column bioassay testing with an
initial mixing dilution factor. No dredged material has ever
been known to fail the water column tests after allowance for
initial mixing. The utility of requiring the test is
debatable.
Revised regs may fashion some type of exclusion which would
require water-column testing only in those cases where
dumping is frequent or continuous.
5
-------
Draft Section of EPA/Corps Ocean Dumping MOU on
ENFORCEMENT
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the United States Department of the Army (Army) hereby establish
policy and procedures pursuant to which they will undertake federal
enforcement of the dredged material ocean dumping requirements
(“Section 103 program”) of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) have enforcement—related authorities under
Sections 105 and 107 of the MPRSA and other statutes. For purposes
of effective administration of these statutory authorities, this
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sets forth an appropriate
allocation of enforcement responsibilities between EPA and the
Corps. The prime goal of the MOU is to strengthen the Section 103
enforcement program by using the expertise, resources, statutory
authorities, and initiative of both agencies in a manner which is
predictable, effective and efficient in achieving the goals of the
MPRSA.
II. POLICY
A. General . It shall be the policy of the EPA and Army to
maintain the integrity of the Section 103 program through federal
enforcement. The basic premise of this effort is to establish a
framework for predictable, effective and efficient permit
processing, permit compliance monitoring and enforcement.
1
-------
B. Review of Permit 1 Conditions for Enforceability . Section
103 related permit conditions must be enforceable in order to
adequately control disposal activities and deter and penalize
violations of the MPRSA. The Corps, as lead agency for permitting
dredged material ocean disposal, will develop Section 103 related
permit conditions. EPA, as the lead agency when seeking civil
administrative or criminal penalties for violations of the MPRSA,
will have review and approval authority over all Section 103
related permit conditions.
C. Violation Determinations . A violation, for the purposes
of this MOU, consists of non-compliance with Section 103 related
permit conditions, with disposal site restrictions promulgated
under 40 C.F.R. 228, with regulations promulgated pursuant to
MRPSA, and failure to meet the requirements of the MPRSA.
Violations may be found by permittee self—reporting, review of
compliance monitoring information, inspections or information
received from the public or other federal, state or local agencies.
When either the Corps or EPA determine that a violation has
occurred, that agency will advise the other agency and initiate
interagency discussions to determine the lead agency and
appropriate enforcement actions to be pursued.
D. Lead Enforcement Aaencv . The lead enforcement agency will
be selected by applying the factors contained in Section III.F of
this MOU. The other agency will cooperate with the lead agency
when agreement has been reached on the need to pursue an
enforcement action. The lead enforcement agency will complete the
enforcement action once the nature of the violation has been
determined and lead agency has been agreed upon. A lead
enforcement agency decision with regard to any issue in a
1 As used in this MOU, the term “permit” is used to refer to
both an actual permit for private projects and the MPRSA Section
103(e) equivalent for Federal Projects.
2
-------
particular case, including conduct of an investigation or
disposition of the enforcement action, is final for that case.
E. Enforcement of Unpermitted Dredged Material Dumping . EPA
will be the lead enforcement agency for unpermitted ocean dumping
of dredged material. When EPA becomes aware of any unpermitted
ocean dumping of dredged material, it will notify the Corps so an
enforcement action, as warranted, under Section 10 of the R&HA may
also be pursued.
III. PROCEDURES
A. Standardized Permit Conditions . EPA and the Corps will
agree upon standardized permit conditions, which will be written
such that they are legally enforceable. Standardized permit
conditions will be agreed and used in all permits to which they
are applicable. EPA and the Corps will periodically review the
standardized permit conditions for workability and effectiveness
based on program experience. Standard permit conditions shall be
developed to address compliance with:
1. the type of material authorized to be transported to be
dumped or to be dumped;
2. the amount of material to be transported to be dumped or
to be dumped;
3. the location where such transport for dumping will be
terminated or where such dumping will occur;
4. the locations from which the dredged material may be
excavated including all horizontal and vertical boundaries;
5. all restrictions on the use of the disposal site, which
3
-------
are promulgated under 40 C.F.R. 228;
6. any necessary restrictions to bring the project into
compliance with the Ocean Dumping Criteria (40 C.F.R. 220-
228), e.g., limits on times or rates of disposal;
7. self reporting requirements and independent inspections
procedures; and,
8. such other matters the EPA and the Corps deem appropriate,
e.g., distribution of liability (i.e., Joint and separable vs.
individual)
B. Approval of Alternate Permit Conditions . When a project
contains a feature such that additional permit conditions are
necessary to assure compliance with the Ocean Dumping Criteria (40
C.F.R. 220—228), additional or alternate permit conditions will be
included in the permit. Such additional or alternate permit
conditions will be approved by EPA and the Corps before a final
permit containing such conditions is issued. If, in the course of
developing a public notice for a project, the Corps determines that
additional or alternate permit conditions are warranted, it will
so notify EPA and initiate consultations for the approval of such
conditions. If, during the review of a project for compliance with
the Criteria, EPA determines that additional or alternate permit
conditions are required, it will so notify the Corps and initiate
consultations for the approval of such conditions. If the EPA and
Corps can not agree on the need for, or language of, permit
conditions, then the resolution of such disagreement shall be
sought through elevation to EPA and Corps headquarters.
C. Compliance Monitoring . Compliance monitoring will be
undertaken to ensure conformance with permit conditions.
Compliance monitoring requirements to be undertaken by the
permittee will be stipulated as permit conditions and will
4
-------
generally take the form of:
1. Self Reporting . All permittees will be required to notify
the EPA and Corps within 24 hours of any permit condition
violation. The exact method of notification and any other
immediate actions to be undertaken by the perrnittee will be
incorporated into the specific permit condition. The EPA and
Corps will proceed with enforcing reported violations in
accordance with Sections (D), (E), (F) and (G) below.
2. Proiect Inspection Reports . In addition to self
reporting, independent (i.e., not from the actual dredging
and dumping parties) inspections will be conducted for all
dredging and disposal activities under Section 103 of the
MPRSA. The exact methods used to conduct such independent
inspections and the format and content of any inspection
reports or certifications will be incorporated into the
specific permit condition. Copies of inspection reports will
be made available to EPA and the Corps for review and
determination of the existence of violations. The EPA and
Corps will proceed with enforcing violations in accordance
with Sections (D), (E), (F) and (G) below.
D. Interagency Consultation on Potential Violations . When
either EPA or the Corps determine that a violation has occurred,
that agency will advise the other agency and initiate interagency
discussions to determine the lead agency and appropriate
enforcement actions to be pursued.
E. Lead Enforcement Agency Selection (Case—load Allocation )
Depending on the type of violation (e.g. Section 103 only or
Section 103 and Section 10) and the type of disposal authorization
(i.e., permit or Federal project), each agency has a range of
enforcement tools available. The lead enforcement agency will be
selected so the penalty will match the violation in severity and
5
-------
will be sought in the most efficient arid effective fashion given
the agency resources and work loads. The lead enforcement agency
will be selected using the following guidelines:
1. EPA will act as lead enforcement agency when a permit
violation involves the following (weighted in the order
presented):
a. Violations of the Ocean Dumping Criteria which:
- result in environmental harm at the disposal
site or its surroundings; or,
- impair the integrity of the criteria.
2. The Corps will act as lead enforcement agency when a
permit violation involves the following (weighted in the order
presented):
a. A breach of contract which is either not an
MPRSA violation or is an MPRSA violation but
is more appropriately dealt with in a contract
action; or,
b. Violations of the River & Harbors Act.
3. As lead enforcement authorities under the above-stated
conditions, EPA and the Corps have a “right of first
refusal,” i.e., the lead agency may decide not to pursue
an enforcement action under their applicable authority.
When this occurs, the other agency can make an
independent determination to pursue enforcement through
procedures available to it. When it is urgent or unclear
as to the nature and extent of the violation, the agency
shall pursue any appropriate enforcement actions and
within a reasonable time period notify the other agency
of the potential violation and the enforcement actions
6
-------
taken.
F. Pursuit of Enforcement Action . After the lead enforcement
agency has been selected, the other agency will cooperate with the
lead agency. The lead enforcement agency will complete the
enforcement action once the violation and lead agency are
determined. The lead enforcement agency shall determine, based on
its authority, the appropriate enforcement response taking into
consideration any views provided by the other agency. An
appropriate enforcement response may included an breach of contract
action, administrative order, administrative penalty complaint, a
civil or criminal judicial referral or other appropriate formal
enforcement response. The lead enforcement agency will conduct all
investigations and prepare all enforcement related materials it
determines are necessary. A lead enforcement agency decisions with
regard to any issue in a particular case is final for that case.
G. Resolution . The lead enforcement agency shall make a
final determination that a violation is resolved and notify
interested parties so that concurrent enforcement files with
another agency can be closed. In addition, the lead enforcement
agency shall make arrangement for proper monitoring when required
for any remedy/removal, compensatory mitigation or other corrective
measures.
IV. RELATED MATTERS
A. Interagency Agreements . The EPA and Army are encouraged
to enter into interagency agreements with other federal, state,
tribal and local agencies which will provide assistance to the EPA
and Corps in pursuit of Section 103 enforcement activities.
However, only the Corps or EPA (or the US Coast Guard) may make a
violation determination and/or pursue an appropriate enforcement
response based upon information received from a third party.
7
-------
B. EPA/Corps Field Agreements . EPA Regional offices and
their respective Corps Division or Districts shall enter into field
level agreements to more specifically implement the provisions of
this MOU.
C. Data Information Exchange . Data which would enhance
either agency’s enforcement efforts should be exchanged between
the EPA and Corps where available. At a minimum, each agency shall
begin to develop a computerized data list of persons that have been
subject to a Section 103 enforcement action subsequent to October
23, 1972 (enactment date of the MPRSA) in order to provide
historical compliance data on persons found to have illegally
dumped into the ocean. Such information will help in an
administrative penalty action to evaluate the statutory factor
concerning history of a violator and will help to determine whether
pursuit of a criminal action is appropriate.
D. National Guidance . EPA and Corps headquarters shall
jointly develop and issue guidance for developing standard permit
conditions. Guidance may include draft “boilerplate” permit
conditions, factors which facilitate enforceability of permit
conditions, and the applicability of various tools and techniques
which could be included in permit conditions for measuring
compliance.
V. GENERAL
A. The procedures and responsibilities of each agency
specified in this MOU may be delegated to subordinates consistent
with established agency procedures.
B. The policy and procedures contained within this MOU do
not create any rights, either substantive or procedural,
enforceable by any party regarding an enforcement action brought
8
-------
by either agency or by the U.S. Deviation or variance from these
MOU procedures will not constitute a defense for violators or
others concerned with any Section 103 enforcement action.
C. Nothing in this document is intended to diminish, modify
or otherwise affect statutory or regulatory authorities of either
agency. All formal guidance interpreting this MOU shall be issued
jointly.
D. This agreement shall take effect 60 days after the date
of the last signature below and will continue in effect for five
years unless extended, modified or revoked by agreement of both
parties, or revoked by either party alone upon six months written
notice, prior to that time.
9
-------
PROPOSED USE OF SQC IN DREDGED MATERIAL REGULATORY PROGRAM
Background
* Current regulations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA, discharge of dredged and fill material to waters of US) and
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Resources, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA, ocean dumping) require testing of dredged material
prior to disposal in the aquatic environment. At present dredged
material discharged under CWA 404 is not evaluated under a formal
testing manual. For ocean dumping, the Agency does have a
testing manual developed in conjunction with the Corps (the Green
Book), which was revised and updated in February 1991. Of the
approximately 200 million cubic yards of dredged material
disposed of annually in the aquatic environment, approximately 60
million cubic yards is ocean dumped subject to the MPRSA, with
the remaining 140 million cubic yards going to waters subject to
CWA 404 or to upland sites.
* Testing is only one element of the overall permit
decisionmaking process. Before aquatic disposal can be allowed,
all other requirements of the CWA 404 Guidelines or MPRSA ocean
dumping regulations must be satisfied. SQC would be used in
addition to, as opposed to replacing, existing regulatory
requirements.
* Under CWA Section 404(b) (1) and MPRSA Section 102(a), EPA
has the primary role, in consultation with the Corps, for
developing the environmental regulations by which permit
applications must be evaluated.
Use of SOC in the dredged material regulatory program
TESTING MANUALS AND REGULATIONS
* SQC are numerical values representing the concentration of
chemicals in sediment that are determined to adversely affect
benthic organisms. The preferred approach is to include use of
Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC) in the testing and evaluation
portions of the regulations (CWA 404: 40 CFR 230.61; MPRSA: 40
CFR 227.6(c) and 227.13(c)) and in the relevant testing manuals.
* The preferred way to implement SQC would be to employ a
reference area approach. Under this approach, dredged material
which meets the SQC (i.e., dredged material which does not exceed
the numeric concentrations) would satisfy the chemical portions
of the testing provisions for those chemicals with SQC values.
Dredged material which does not meet the SQC would be evaluated
using the SQC methodology to calculate the bioavailable fraction
of the chemical in both the reference area sediment and the
dredged material. If the dredged material bioavailable chemical
concentration is less than or equal to the reference area
concentration, the chemical-specific portions of the testing
provisions for those chemicals with SQC values would be
-------
2
satisfied. If the dredged material bioavailable chemical
concentration exceeded the reference area concentration, the
dredged material would fail the chemical-specific portions of the
testing provisions. It is important to note that further
clarification is needed to determine exact “pass/fail” points,
because of the uncertainty inherent in each SQC value.
* The reference area approach was chosen in part because it
retains the reference area approach which has been used in the
ocean dumping program for many years, thus maintaining an element
of continuity in the management of dredged material. In
addition, use of a reference area as the benchmark for
determining the acceptability of the material to be disposed is
consistent with the MPRSA’s use of the “unreasonable degradation”
standard for permit issuance.
* Because the Agency’s goal is to provide for consistent
environmental protection between the CWA 404 and MPRSA programs,
where and how SQC are applied by the regulations and testing
manuals will likely be similar in both programs.
* Under current Section 404 program procedures, the chemical-
specific testing requirements apply only to material for which
there is a reason to believe that it may be contaminated. In the
case of MPRSA, dredged material which meets certain criteria
showing contamination is unlikely (40 CFR 227.13(b)) is excluded
from testing. It is envisioned that these testing exclusions
would be retained.
STATE STANDARDS
* For CWA 404, the States may incorporate SQC into their Water
Quality Standards, and thus implement them through their Section
401 certification authority. In such cases, SQC could apply to
U Section 404 permit decisions, including discharges of dredged
and fill material, regardless of evidence of contamination.
Therefore, if SQC are implemented outside the testing regimes
(i.e., in State water quality standards), the implementation
manual being prepared for SQC should clearly acknowledge that SQC
are not applicable to non-sediment fill activities (i.e.,
discharges of material that has an upland, non-sediment source
such as quarries or borrow pits).
* For MPRSA, potential application of SQC via the State
standards process is less of an issue. Many of the ocean dumping
sites lie beyond thethree mile limit, and thus are beyond the
geographic reach of State standards. In addition, the
applicability of the 401 certification process to ocean dumping
also is less clear than in the CWA 404 program because MPRSA
section 106 contains language pre-empting State regulation of
ocean dumping and voiding licences or permits purporting to
regulate ocean dumping.
-------
3
Other options considered
A) Use Soc as a flat pass/fail criteria . This option was
rejected because the use of an absolute numerical value would be
inconsistent with the testing provisions of the 404 Guidelines
and the reference area approach of the ocean dumping program.
Chemicals for which SQC are and will be available constitute only
a portion of possible contaminants, and chemical testing is only
one portion of the overall effects-based testing regime. In
addition, this option is likely to draw the strongest opposition
from the Corps and regulated community.
B) Provide for a bioassay test over-ride of SQC . The SQC
reflect chronic effects, whereas the currently available sediment
bioassay methods reflect acute effects. Until chronic bioassay
methods become available, it would be difficult to justify an
approach of using sediment bioassay results to foverridel? SQC in
the testing program. The option of a bioassay test override
would be the most acceptable to the Corps and regulated community
from the point of view of minimizing what they perceive as
unnecessary economic and programmatic impacts associated with
SQC.
Implementation steps (timeline also attached)
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS COMMON TO CWA 404 AND MPRSA
1.) Evaluate available data to better assess programmatic
impacts of SQC . TIMING: Initiate immediately
2) Review SOC documentation in light of Corps comments .
TIMING: Initiate immediately
3) Address use of SQC in dredged material reQulatory
programs in SOC implementation guidance . TIMING: Coincide with
planned release of SQC implementation guidance
4) Track and comment on potential legislation regarding use
of SQC in regulatory programs . TIMING: Dependent on Hill
legislative action
5) Negotiate with Corps on use of SOC in dredged material
programs . TIMING: Initiate immediately
6) Upon finalization of SQC. amend regulations to
incorporate their use as described in the preferred option .
TIMING: Propose regulatory revisions within 6 months of SQC
finalization
7) Revise testing manuals to address SOC implementation .
TIMING: Issue draft at same time as regulation proposal
-------
4
TWO ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION STEPS FOR MPRSA
* Proceed with current plans to revise dredged material
dumping regulations . The existing ocean dumping regulations for
dredged material are being revised to respond to the results of a
past lawsuit and incorporate program experience. These revisions
would move ahead without awaiting resolution of the SQC issue,
and the preamble can be drafted to solicit early public comment
on how to use SQC in the program, thus serving much like an ANPRN
on the issue.
TIMING: Proposal Pall/Winter ‘92
* Avoid actions within London Dumping Convention (LDC that
limit or impair US flexibility on issue of SOC usage . Under §102
of the MPRSA, EPA is obligated to apply the binding requirements
of the LDC in developing its ocean dumping regulations. In order
to avoid surrendering control on the SQC issue to an
international (and often political body), the US should seek to
avoid interjecting the issue of SQC into the LDC until such time
as the SQC are finalized and the position on their use in the
dredged material program is firmly developed.
TIMING: LDC meetings over next 2 - 4 years
-------
OUTCOME MONITORING FOR ESTUARY MANAGERS:
TRACKING ESTUARY PROTECTION PROGRAMS
Of the 100 estuaries in the nation’s coastal areas, 17 have been included in the National Estuary
Pro gram. This program provides special attention to focusing the efforts of all levels of
government, along with Involvement of business and the environmental community, In
remedlating past problems and preventing future damage to each estuary. This is accomplished
through the installation of a Management Conference, which develops a Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). The plan outlines activities and their estimated
costs, and presents a timetable for implementation of actions by dozens of agencies and
organizations.
The Urban Institute is assisting the participants to develop a monitoring system to use for
tracking the progress being made In protecting these estuaries. While primarily aimed at tracking
Implementation of actions recommended by the Management Conference in the CCMP for each
estuary, the system will be helpful in the assessment of the National Estuary Program In Its
entirety. The monitoring system will accomplish three basic objectives. It will:
- assist estuary program managers improve their programs by identifying current
and emerging problems;
- provide accountability to elected officials and the public relating to the progress
towards estuary protection;
- help identify the programs and projects that are working well; and
- provide a framework for assessing the National Estuary Program as a whole.
Three estuaries will serve as pilots for the development of the monitoring system. The
monitoring system will be developed and tested with these estuaries during 1992 and early 1993,
and made available to all estuaries In late 1993.
A steering committee that includes representatives from all levels of government, industry,
several estuaries, and the environmental community has been established to help guide the
development and dissemination of the outcome monitoring project.
-------
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
2100 M Street, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Estuary Outcome Monitoring Steering Committee
FROM: Blame Liner
DATE: April 20, 1992
SUBJECT: Material for April 20 meeting is enclosed
Enclosed you will find three short papers concerning monitoring outcomes--one is on
system characteristics, one on performance indicators, and the other describing the field
procedures. I hope you will be able to read through them prior to the meeting since they will
be the focus of much of our discussion.
A Continental breakfast will be provided in Conference Room A of The Urban Institute
beginning at 8:30 a.m. If you have questions about travel, hotels, or the agenda, don’t hesitate
to call us.
-------
April 16, 1992
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
A. Characteristics of Performance Indicators
The following characteristics need to be considered for each indicator when selecting
performance indicators and designing an appropriate estuary protection outcome monitoring
process:
Type of indicator, grouped by such categories as:
• First Order Effects -- whether the indicator provides information as to the
extent to which needed actions have been adequately implemented
(administrative and regulatory actions).
• Second Order Effects -- whether the indicator provides information as to the
extent to which actions have led to a reduction in threats to water and
sediment quality (such as reduced pollutant discharges/loadings).
• Third Order Effects -- whether the indicator provides information as to the
extent to which water or sediment quality has changed (concentration
levels).
• Fourth Order Effects -- whether the indicator provides information as to the
extent to which health of humans, fish, other wildlife, habitat, and
vegetation, and the economy of the region have changed (living resources;
economic conditions).
Examples of performance indicators for each of these four categories are presented in
Section B, below.
2. Frequency of measurement -. how often is the particular measurement needed.
3. Lag time of the measurement--expected length of time from an NEP-related action
until there is likely to be a detectable effect on the measured values of the indicator.
This should be identified for each measure. Long intervals should not be the sole
reason for exclusion of an indicator. In general, first and second order effects are likely
to occur sooner than third and fourth order effects.
4. Coverage/scope of the measurements -- which particular fish or shellfish are covered
-------
by the indicator.
5. Geographical coverage of the measurements -- how much, and which particular parts,
of the estuary is covered. One factor here is the extent to which the estuary programs
focus on particular problem locations whose progress needs to be tracked (in addition to
monitoring the estuary as a whole). (Note: for some indicators, less mobile species will
generally be needed for smaller geographical areas.)
6. Timing of the measurements -- in which seasons or months will the measurements be
made. Temperature and precipitation conditions, for example, can have substantial
effects on the values for some indicators, and these are usually closely related to time of
the year.
7 Units in which the indicator is expressed. For example, some measurements are best
expressed as averages, some as cumulative totals, and others as readings at specific
points in time.
8. Extent to which the measurement is believed to be affected by natural factors, such
as information on the extent to which the measurements can be expected to have a
cyclical component (e.g., natural fluctuations in species populations).
9. Accuracy and precision of the indicator measurements -- how much uncertainty is
there that the measurements for the indicator are sufficiently accurate and valid for their
intended use.
10. Availability of “standards” for the indicator -- levels above, or below, which
excessive risks are expected to occur. Whether or not standards exit, an NEP can set
targets for each and every performance indicator that indicate what level of achievement
is anticipated by particular points in time.
11. Composite performance “index” -- can, and should, the indicator be included as part
of an index (e.g., an overall index of water quality) that would be useful to estuary
officials.
12. Breakouts of the indicator that will provide officials with improved perspective as to
what is happening and where. These might include such breakouts as:
2
-------
• Sources of the problem (e.g., particular industries, government facilities,
households, particular recreational activities, stormwater runoff).
• -.Particular pollutant/problem.
• Geographical sections of the estuary area.
• Which political jurisdiction (including federal, state and local units).
• Time of the year.
• Degree of hazard (e.g., counts of permit violations by whether major or
minor violations).
Breakouts that are particularly important are candidates for inclusion in the basic
performance reports; others might be included as backup tables to the reports.
13. Explanatory information. External factors can have important effects on observed
progress. Thus, such explanatory information should be included as part of the regular
performance reports to help put the progress information into proper perspective. For
example, unusual amounts of precipitation or unusual temperatures can cause the
occurrence of certain estuary problems and should be reported; similarly, degradation of
habitat in spawning areas located outside the estuary can affect populations of migratory
fish; and changes in estuary funding can have major effects on progress.
14. Limitations of each performance indicator. Each indicator should be clearly defmed,
both as to its scope and coverage (as noted above) and its limitations and weaknesses.
This will help users of the information to put the information into proper perspective.
15. Cost of data collection. How much added time and cost swill be required to
obtain the data at the frequency and precision needed.
3
-------
B. Performance Indicators
Below are candidates for performance indicators that assess progress in estuary
protection. These indicators are aimed at measunng the outcomes, that is, the results of
estuary protection activities. Each estuary program will need to identify the specific
indicators, and variations thereof, that best meet the estuary’s own needs and are important to
it.
First Order Effects : Implementation of external activities expected to lead subsequently
to higher order effects such as reduction in environmental threats, improved water or
sediment quality, and/or improved health or economic condition of living resources.
1. Number of local communities that have/have not passed and implemented estuary
protection activities, such as: relevant land use legislation; recommended legislation to
restrict particular chemicals; special discharge controls; requirements to follow best
management practices; added enforcement activities; technical assistance to businesses
to reduce hazardous waste production; public information activities. (Some of these
indicators might be ad hoc ones relating to specific action projects.)
2. Amount of funds raised for estuary protection programs (as evidence of a substantial,
continuing estuary protection effort).
3. Degree of satisfaction of state agencies, local government agencies,
citizen/environmental groups, and business groups with (a) the progress being made; (b)
the extent to which coordination, cooperativeness, and communications among the
various involved groups have occurred (based on a systematic survey of agencies and
groups).
4. Number and percent of estuary square miles that has been “monitored.” (This has been
a state 305b measurement.)
5. Number and percent of point source facilities reporting late, not reporting at all, or
missing schedule dates for required facility changes/corrections, by type of facility (e.g.
wastewater treatment, industrial, agricultural, federal, etc.)
6. Number and percent of facilities that are repeat violators of their permits, that is, are
either (a) in substantial noncompliance for two or more consecutive reporting periods;
4
-------
and (b) have been in substantial noncompliance more than once m, say, the past two
years.
7. Elapsed time from identification of a serious noncompliance for either excessive
discharges or not reporting on time until a public agency has taken a major enforcement
action, whether an administrative action or judicial step.
8. Number and percent of various types of facilities not providing required information on
time on their discharges, water quality samples, etc. -- by potential
importance/seriousness category, categories based on such factors as the type and
amount of pollutant potentially involved, and whether a repeat violator or not. (Note:
EPA requires information on the number of “noncomplying” facilities, defined as
including both those facilities that have not reported on-time and those whose
discharges have exceeded permitted limits. These two major categories of
noncompliance should probably be distinguished. The latter category is included as a
second order effect since it directly relates to threats to water quality.)
9. Elapsed times from identification of serious discharge violations until the violations
were corrected. This indicator might be presented in one or both of such forms as the
following: (a) number and percent of facilities with one or more senous violations
corrected, or still outstanding, after specific durations of time (such as six months, one
year, etc.); and (b) the number and percent of violators still outstanding after “X” or
more months. The average and median times from identification until correction, while
of some interest, are not likely to be nearly as useful as providing information on the
distribution of times, such as those that exceed some threshold length of time.
10. Number and percent of facilities that have exceeded their permitted amounts (such as
maximum discharge limits) for one or more contaminants, categorized by seriousness.
An additional variation is the number and percent of facilities with repeat violations
over, say, the past 24 months.
11. Estimates of amount of use/sales of pesticides and fertilizers, by location (e.g. county),
such as the tons of fertilizer applications, or the tons of nitrogen and phosphorus,
broken out by source (e.g. agnculture, urban run- off, POTWs, industry perhaps by
type, or “upstream” sources).
12. Amount of high-risk acreage added/reduced during the reporting period, through such
5
-------
actions as land use and zoning provisions.
13. Response tijnes to spills/emergencies.
14. Number of targeted facilities that have implemented BMPs.
15. Number of municipalities with/without storm water controls.
16. Percent of hazardous substances removed by area wastewater treatment plants.
17. Amount and percent of hazardous materials that are recycled.
18. Number and percent of businesses (industrial, commercial, and agricultural) and
households that: (a) report having seen or heard program materials, and (b) rate the
materials as useful.
6
-------
Second Order Effects : Reductions in threats to water and sediment quality.
Amount of known pollutant discharges into waters, by substance and by type of source
(e.g., wastewater treatment facilities, industrial facilities, power plants, commercial
facilities, or federal facilities--perhaps further broken out into facility-size categories and
type of industry, combined sewer outfalls, septic systems, recreational activities such as
boating, agricultural, etc.). Each NEP is likely to want to highlight those pollutants that
are a particular threat to the estuary. However, the estuary should track any substances
that the program has identified as a potential threat, even though no current problem
exists. In this latter case, pollutants might be measured at less frequent intervals, and
with less detailed spatial coverage, than problem substances in order to avoid excessive
measurement costs
Tracking of discharges from point sources is federally required under NPDES quarterly
(or monthly) discharge monitoring reports, though not all dischargers report.
NOAA’s periodic point source discharge reports have covered: biological oxygen
demand (BUD), total suspended solids (TSS), nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus),
metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, and zinc), petroleum
hydrocarbons (oil and grease), pesticides (35 compounds), pathogens (fecal coliform
bacteria), and wastewater treatment sludge.
2. Estimated amount of pesticides and fertilizers entering the estuary by location (e.g.,
county); for example, tons of nitrogen and phosphorus, broken out by source (e.g.,
agriculture, urban run-off, POTWs, industry perhaps by type, or “upstream” sources).
3. Amount of point source pollutants discharged in excess of permitted levels.
4. Amount of pollutant discharged in spills, by geographical area and type of pollutant.
5. Number and percent of businesses (mdustrial, commercial, and agricultural) and
households that report having altered their behavior/production processes to reduce their
pollutants by a significant amount.
7
-------
Third Order Effects : Effects on water and sediment quality.
Indicators of water quality in various segments of the estuary, including extent to which
standards are exceeded for specific pollutants, various physical characteristics are
exceeded, etc. This should cover such characteristics as: dissolved oxygen (DO), total
suspended solids (TSS), toxics (metals and chemicals), nutrients, pathogens (e.g. fecal
coliform bacteria), clarity, extent of visible trash, etc.
Summary indicators should be used, such as: (a) an overall water quality index (e.g.,
index being developed at Sarasota Bay), perhaps using a scale of “one” to “ten”; and (b)
the amount of water acreage for which, say, one or more water quality characteristics
significantly deviates from safe or desired levels.
2. Frequency, extent, and duration of restrictions on uses of the water, such as on
sheilfishing, finfishing, boating, bathing, and other commercial and recreational uses.
For example, for shellfish NOAA tracks the amount and percent of acreage that is
“harvest limited” (acreage that may be contaminated with bacterial or viral pathogens).
This is further broken out by the amount that is “conditionally approved,” “restricted,”
or “prohibited.” It is also likely to be important to track the duration of these
restrictions, such as tabulations of the number of acreage-days under restrictions.
Another form of this indicator is the amount (e.g., acreage) downgraded/upgraded
during the period in terms of designated uses.
3. Soil/sediment contamination levels.
4. Percent of estuary square miles that support designated uses: (a) fully; (b) partially; or
(c) not at all. (This is an indicator that has been used in the state 305b reports.)
5. Percent of citizens and businesses that give various ratings (such as excellent, good,
fair, or poor) to the estuary area on: usability for various recreational/commercial
activities, appearance, smell, edibility of fin and shell fish coming from the estuary
waters, etc.
8
-------
Fourth Order Effects : Effects on health of living resources (whether human, fish, fowl,
vegetation) and on economic conditions.
I. Counts of contaminated resources: (a) shellfish; (b) finfish; (c) water fowl; (d)
mammals; (e) vegetation -- such as amount of contaminated fish, tissue contamination
findings, prevalence of diseases in animals, number and size of fish kill events
categonzed by cause, and loss of species.
2. Size of harvest: amounts (e.g., pounds) of commercial catches (landings/harvests) of
key fish and shellfish, numbers of juveniles in nursery areas during the summer that
have grown to two inches since hatching in the spring (used by Chesapeake Bay), and
average numbers caught in nets. (However, data on commercial catches are generally
less valid than systematic samples because catches do not necessarily irack the natural
abundance of species. Other factors can have major effects on the size of catches, such
as market values, fishing technology, and fishing time.)
3. Illegal harvesting: for example, (a) estimated amount of healthy fish harvested above
legal levels, and (b) estimated amount of contaminated fish illegally harvested.
4. Amount (e.g., acreage) of wetlands and habitat available/lost.
5. Number of reported incidents of human disease/health problems due to water
contamination problems -- by severity of incidents.
6. Economic value of various estuary-related commercial and recreational activities.
Summary indicators of conditions are likely to be highly desirable because of the large
number of individual species and pollutants. Some national attempts to develop these are
aheady on-going, such as various “coastal community bio-assessment indicators,” based on
such data as the number and type of species and weight (“biomass”) of key animals -- relating
to certain types of estuary conditions. However, each NEP should consider, while waiting for
national versions, developing its own summary indicators (e.g. of water quality) based on
local technical advice and its own set of estuary problems and conditions.
9
-------
April 16, 1992
Outcome Assessment Procedures For Estuary Managers
Suggested System Characteristics
Purposes and Clients For Outcome Assessment
This process for monitonng the outcomes of estuary protection efforts has two primary
purposes:
1. To provide basic, important information to estuary program officials/managers to
help them plan and manage the program by providing feedback on the extent to
which their activities are achieving the effects expected. This, in turn, should
help guide and improve future program activities and aid in priority setting.
2. Provide mformation to elected officials and the public as to the extent of estuary
protection progress being made, thereby increasing accountability for the
resources being applied to the effort.
The procedures are focused on helping individual local estuary protection programs,
their managers, and other public officials. The performance information can indicate where
expected progress is not being made and, thus, direct attention to those problems. The
information from subsequent reports can indicate whether actions taken to correct problems
have led to the desired outcomes. And the performance information can be used to
comiT lunicate with citizens and the media as to the progress being made and to help develop
and justify budget requests.
The information generated is also intended to help federal and state officials in their
accountability and program improvement tasks. For example, the federal government can use
-------
the information provided by the individual NEPs to help prepare reports to Congress on the
progress arid achievements that have occurred. EPA can also aggregate the information to
identify what performance areas have been weakest and need technical assistance or other
help. Since each estuary program will likely have somewhat different performance indicators
and measurement protocols, it is not expected that the quantitative values will be additive.
Other forms of aggregation, however, can be used.)
The outcome assessments will track progress in meeting management targets relating to
environmental and other objectives. The procedures are not aimed at tracking strictly internal
activities, such as the holding of committee meetings or meeting CCMP milestones. The
focus of the information sought by the procedures is on progress external to the inner
workings of the NEP itself. The information from the process can be used to provide
baseline information for programs that engage in strategic planning and for programs that
incorporate a “total quality management (TQM)” framework.
The procedures should be useful to estuary officials both during the period leading up to
final CCMP approval and after it has been prepared and approved. During the CCMP
preparation period, estuary programs undertake numerous activities intended to help protect
the estuary even though the CCMP has not been completed. For example, NEPs undertake
various efforts to alert their citizens to estuary protection needs and actions, and each NEP
undertakes various action plan demonstration projects. The information obtained from the
procedures, when combined with other information such as linkages to specific estuary
program actions and to explanatory information (discussed further below) will help officials
identify the effectiveness of program activities. However, these outcome monitoring
2
-------
procedures will not provide rigorous evidence on the extent to which the estuary protection
program itself has caused the observed changes. The information obtained by these
procedures, if combined with information from in-depth evaluations or policy analyses, can
shed further light on the effectiveness of particular estuary activities.
These procedures will not provide estimates of the efficiency with which program
resources are being used. However, when combined with other information (e.g., program
costs) these procedures will support estimates of cost-effectiveness of the program activities.
These outcome assessment procedures are intended to provide public officials a regular,
comprehensive, and comprehensible picture of the progress being made on the major elements
of the estuary protection efforts.
Primary Characteristics of the Procedures
Following are the primary characteristics that guide development of the detailed
procedures:
1. Information needs to be provided on a number of indicators of estuary protection
performance. Estuary protection inherently involves multiple aspects; also, various non-
government interest groups with somewhat differing goals will inevitably exist in any
estuary program. Therefore, indicators to be tracked should cover a range of outcomes,
from progress by government, business, and citizens in implementing problem-reduction
activities to the eventual “end” outcomes of improvement in the health of living
resources.
3
-------
2. The outcome assessment process will be modeled on a common framework that
includes:
(a) Petformance indicators;
(b) Breakouts of performance mdicators by key characteristics of concern to the
local program;
(c) Reporting formats;
(d) Explanatory information; and
(e) Data collection procedures.
This common framework should not constrain local autonomy, but will permit
useful national assessments across discrete estuary programs.
3. The performance indicators should be labeled and grouped by the type of effect desired:
o First Order Effects : Whether the indicator provides information as to the
extent to which needed actions have been adequately implemented (whether the
action is administrative or regulatory).
o Second Order Effects : Whether the indicator provides information as to the
extent to which actions have led to a reduction in threat to water and sediment
quality, such as reduced pollutant discharges.
o Third Order Effects : Whether the indicator provides information as to the
extent to which water or sediment quality has changed.
o Fourth Order Effects : Whether the indicator provides information as to the
extent to which the health of humans, fish, other wildlife, habitat, and
vegetation, and the economy of the region have changed.
4
-------
This categorization of performance indicators should help officials and the public sort
out the outcomes as to their ultimate importance. The first and second order effects
will generally be observable relatively soon after program activities; third and fourth
order effects generally will occur later.
4. Each estuary program can adapt the process and procedures to its own local needs .
Given the common framework, each local program will want to focus on indicators that
show the extent of progress in addressing the particular problems and priorities of
concern to its own estuary. And each needs to choose data collection procedures and
protocols based on local needs and assessment resources. The primary principle for the
local program is to use measurement and reporting procedures that provide reasonably
valid and useful information for assessing estuary protection outcomes. The estuary
program will need to continue to report on each indicator until the indicator becomes
obsolete or until it clearly is no longer worth collecting and reporting.
5. The procedures should provide information to officials on a regular, scheduled timely
basis . Preferably, outcome assessment reports should be provided at least quarterly, for
example, to reflect seasonal considerations. (However, data on some performance
indicators may need to be collected more frequently, while data on others are less
frequently collected.)
6. The outcome reports should be addressed to program managers and policy officials
( and eventually the public) ; these are not the technical reports needed for the scientific
community. The performance reports should be clear and readable by a non-scientific,
non-technical, audience. While this may seem obvious, this principle is all too often
5
-------
neglected. This does not mean the indicators can not have technical content, but they
should be presented in a way comprehensible to laypersons.
7. The performance indicators should be stable over time so that progress and trends can
be identified. That is, a relatively fixed set of outcome indicators should be used. Of
course, improvements in measurement will occur, and the appearance of new estuary
problems may require additional indicators. The principle here is that the reported
indicators should not be solely those that have shown major changes in a particular
reporting period or that currently happen to be the program’s focus of attention.
8. The number of performance indicators should be limited for manageability . Therefore,
some outcome indicators will need to be composite measures, that is, indicators
representing aggregations of two or more component indicators (for example, to provide
an overall indicator of water quality). In such cases, information on each component
indicator should be readily available to persons that need more detail. Even if there is
not completely satisfying scientific knowledge about an outcome characteristic and how
to summarize it, usually at least a roughly reasonable summarization can be made.
Tracking the values of such summary indicators can give policy officials and the public
an improved understanding of key outcome characteristics.
9. To make the information more useful, selected outcome indicators should be broken out
by key characteristics that are expected to be of importance to program
officials/managers. Such breakouts, for example, are likely to include geographical
characteristics (e.g., political boundaries) type of facility/industry involved, source of
impairment, type of recreational activity, etc.
6
-------
10. The indicators should cover outcomes that the estuary protection program has the
potential to affect . However, it is not necessary that the programs have the primary
influence over each outcome indicator’s value. Thus, where an outcome is important to
the estuary, but external factors play the major role m determining its value, the estuary
program is still likely to want to track the outcome.
11. The performance indicators include both: (a) outcomes that can be expected to occur
soon (e.g., within months) after a protection activity is implemented and (b) outcomes
for which NEP activities can not be expected to yield results for, perhaps, many years.
The performance reports should make it clear which indicators are not expected to show
improvement for some years to come despite program activities. Similarly, those
indicators whose values are likely to have resulted from actions taken years before
should be identified as such.
12. The performance indicators generally will be expressed in obiective units of
measurement . However, subjective information may be needed for some indicators,
such as those that describe the progress by units of government in implementing
proposed environmental protection regulations. When subjective data are used, the
information procedures, however, need to pass the test of having used a systematic,
reliable, and documented procedures to obtain the information--so that users can have
confidence that the subjective information is reasonably accurate.
13. To the extent practical, the performance indicators should also enable program officials
to track progress on major special projects/activities , such as individual demonstration
action projects. To do this will likely require breakouts of relevant performance
7
-------
indicators that relate to the project, such as breakouts that focus on the specific
geographical areas and pollutants targeted by the project.
14. The proces& includes provision for estuary program personnel to provide relevant
explanatory information , along with the performance data in each performance report.
Many external and internal factors can affect (adversely or beneficially) the outcomes of
the program. For example, natural elements can have major effects on some outcome
values. Explanatory information might be standardized data (e.g., population changes,
amount of precipitation, and temperature data); or, it might be ad hoc (e.g., major
businesses entering or leaving the area, other changes in pollutant loadings from areas
around tributaries, or the appearance of a new fish disease believed not to have been
caused by human activity).
15. Estuary programs are likely to want to set annual targets for the desired values of each
performance indicator. The program will be able to track both the absolute progress
and progress relative to the targets at the end of each reporting period. Selecting the
targets for outcome indicators is a separate step from selecting the outcome indicators to
track (and preferably would be part of an annual action plan). The targets should be
set only after considering the resources that the estuary program expects to apply to
affecting the indicator, as well as external factors likely to aid or hinder progress.
16. The annual cost of the outcome assessment process should be as low as possible
without compromising its validity.
17. Perfect measurement is not possible. Many measurement problems exist and will
continue to exist. The performance reports should clearly note those outcome indicators
8
-------
for which considerable uncertainty exists as to the accuracy and validity of the
measured values. The principle used here is that the procedures should be the best
currently a ailab1e to the program within its budget. The procedures should make as
much use as possible of the latest scientific and technical knowledge, and should be
sufficiently precise to help program officials make decisions that help them improve the
program. Standardized data collection protocols should be used within the estuary to
the extent feasible. However, the desire for perfection and scientific proof should not
deter the use of outcome indicators and data collection procedures that do not meet
rigorous standards. It is better to be roughly right than to do nothing .
18. The management outcome monitoring process should make use of data provided by the
estuary’s existing environmental (“scientific”) monitoring process to the extent practical
and appropriate. The environmental monitoring data will be the basis for most third
order and fourth order performance indicators. For the management reports, the highly
detailed, and often highly technical, environmental data will need to be summarized
(probably, in some cases, into “indices”).
18. The management outcome monitoring process should help form the basis for the estuary
program’s monitoring plan, which preferably encompasses both environmental and
management outcome monitoring needs.
19. Preferably, the estuary will have an annual action plan, part of which will present the
estuary’s targets for the forthcoming year on each of the performance indicators (with
the targets based on the resources expected for the forthcoming year). During the
period over which the CCMP is being prepared, the action plan can be the same as, or
9
-------
at least compatible with, the estuary’s annual work plan. After the CCMP has been
completed and approved, the management monitoring process would be part of the
estuary’s p1 ans for each subsequent year.
20. Finally, of course, the process should be one that the estuary can feasibly implement
with as low a cost in dollars and staff time as possible.
10
-------
MAR11, 1992
Tasks and Schedule for Pilot NEPS
The Urban Institute will develop an outcome assessmentlrnonitonng “model” that includes
draft components for:
* Summary of model characteristics
* Desired performance indicator characteristics
* Candidate performance indicators
* illustrative breakout characteristics
* Reporting formats
* Sample explanatory and contextual information
* Candidate sources of data and, where necessary, sample data collection procedures
Pilot NEPs will be provided these draft materials as part of working group activities to help the
working group shape the outcome assessment process and procedures to meet local needs.
Step I: Establish a Workln Group ,
This group should consist of the persons expected to design the local outcome assessment
process with the assistance of the Urban Institute. The group should consist of approximately
6-10 persons. It should contain persons representing each of NEP’s primary committees,
such as the technical advisory committee, the citizens advisory committee, and the policy
committee. It should contain persons familiar with the scientific issues, but they should also
be pragmatic individuals with a sense of what is Likely to be needed by management/policy
making officials and, ultimately, the public.
The group should plan to operate as a group for approximately 12 months. During the first 4-
5 months the group will shape the process. During the next 6-7 months, the group will
oversee the pilot testing of the procedures and reporting process. In its final 1-2 months, the
group will develop its recommendations as to long-term implementation for the process (such
as which components should be discontinued, extended, expanded, etc.).
The following sections present an illustrative agenda for the working group for its activities
during the process design stage.
I
-------
Step 2: Workin2 Group Activities
Note: Each of the formal meeting sessions should probably be one-half day sessions, about
31/2 hours long. On occasion, a full-day meeting may be warranted.
Meeting 1: Define goals and objectives .
Advance Preparation: Review of materials provided by the Urban Institute, including the
list of candidate system characteristics.
Meeting Agenda:
o Discuss and begin determination of the purposes of the outcome assessment
process, including identifying the clients for the information that the process is
intended to generate.
o Discuss the dcsired system characteristics; discuss fully the pros and cons,
advantages and disadvantages of such outcome assessment. Discuss how the
disadvantages of the outcome assessment process might be alleviated.
o Establish assignments for the next meeting.
Meetings 2 and 3: Identify and discuss the desired performance characteristics to be tracked .
(Note: These meetings are likely to require more than one-half day each.)
Advance Preparation: Before the first meeting review (a) the NEP’s past materials
relevant to environmental indicators (including measurements already being tracked)
and to actions that the NEP has recommended be taken, or is likely to recommend in
the future; and (1,) the Urban Institute’s draft list of candidate characteristics of
performance indicators and illustrative set of candidate performance indicators. For
the second meeting, perhaps divide the group into sub-groups, with each sub-group
focusing on one category of performance indicator, Ask each such sub-group to
provide candidate indicators, along with a rationale and discussion of problems
associated with each indicator. The sub-groups probably should meet at least once
before between the meetings.
Meeting Agenda:
o Discuss each category of performance indicator, the utility of such categorization,
and select, at least tentatively, a set of categories by which to group desired
performance indicators.
2
-------
o Discuss the individual indicators, including each’s relevance, likely validity, and
usefulness.
Meetings 4 and 5: Discussion of data collection procedures and sources
Advance Preparation: Before the first meeting, review the NEP’s current data collection
procedures and sources and the Urban Institute’s summary of data collection procedures
relevant to the NEP’s list of performance indicators. (The latter will be developed by the
Urban Institute for each pilot estuary based on its examination of the NEP’s current data
efforts and efforts that have been tried elsewhere.) Before the second meeting, again
divide up into sub-groups, by category of performance indicator. Ask each sub-group to
examine the possible data collection procedures and sources for each indicator.
Meeting Agenda:
o Discuss the data sources and data collection procedures needed for each
performance indicator that remain candidates (based on the determinations mpde
at the previous meetings). Group the indicators by common data collection
procedures. For example, representative surveys of citizens might be used to
obtain data simultaneously on a number of indicators relevant to changes in
citizen behavior from activities such as estuary protection campaigns.
o Examine the likely costs and other difficulties associated with the various data
collection procedures. At the same time, consider ways to reduce the costs (and
the corresponding reduction, if any, in the validity and accuracy of the resulting
information.
Meeting 6: Decisions on performance indicators and data collection procedures; begin
discussion of breakouts. report formats , and the pilot test .
Advance Preparation: Review of the material generated at the prior sessions. Review
Urban Institute material on candidate breakouts and report formats.
Meeting Agenda:
o Make decisions as to the performance indicators and data sources.
o Identify breakouts for each performance indicator that will be useful to estuary
managers/officials (Such as breakouts by geographical segment of the estuary
study area, political jurisdiction, proportion of impaiied sections by likely cause,
type of pollutant, etc.)
3
-------
o Select the report format(s) likely to be most useful to managers/officials.
Meeting 7: Detailed plans for Pilot Test
Develop details for the pilot test of the procedures. This should include a determination
of who does what , by when . Step 3, below, indicates the activities for which plans need
to be made.
Step 3: Pilot Test
The pilot test wiil include the following tasks:
o Tabulation of already available data to put into the form required by the performance
indicators.
o Testing of revised or new data collection instruments (such as citizen surveys).
o Development of indices and other summary indicators--to translate numerous
component indicators/parameters (and possibly highly technical parameters) into
fewer, but understandable summary indicators.
o Testing of the report formats, including displays of important breakout information
(such as to provide water quality indices for various segments of the estuary study
area).
Throughout this step, the working group should oversee the taRkc and resolve the inevitable
problems and other procedural issues that arise during the pilot test.
Step 4: RevIew of Pilot Test Results and Recommendations For the Future
The working group should reconvene to:
o Review the pilot test results,
o Consider difficulties that arose and identify what needs to be done to correct problems
in the future,
4
-------
o Estimate the costs of an on-going process, and
o Make its recommendations as to future implementation of the manager outcome
assessment process.
5
-------
ESTUARY MANAGEMENT OUTCOME MONITORING PROJECT
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
APRIL 30, 1992
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
2100 M STREET, N.W.
5TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
(202) 857-8605
TENTATIVE AGENDA
9:00 INTRODUCTIONS AND ORIENTATION TO THE PROJECT
-objectives and purposes
-schedules
-pilot sites and field activities
OUTCOME MONITORING
-system characteristics
-characteristics of performance indicators
-specific performance indicators
12:00 LUNCH AT THE INSTITUTE
1:00 ADVISORS DISCUSS OUTCOMES OF ESTUARY PROGRAMS
-breakout groups discuss indicators
-reconvene for committee discussion and advice to team
WORK TASKS AND SCHEDULES FOR THE NEXT PHASE
-the pilot estuaries
-field site procedures
-next meeting for steering committee
3:00 ADJOURNMENT
-------
Outcome Monitoring for Estuary Managers Steering Committee
Mr. Robert Bendick
Deputy Director
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
518/457-0975
Mr. Jeff Benoit
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge St., 20th Fl.
Boston, MA 02202
6171727-9580
Mr. Hal Bickings
RR1, Box 15
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
6091785-0074
455-0159
Mr. John Costlow
201 Ann Street
Beaufort, NC 28516
9191728-4027
Mr. Bill Eichbaum
World Wildlife Fund
1250 24th St., SW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20037
202/293-4800
Mr. Ronald 0. Embry
do Exxon Baytown Refinery
P.O. Box 3950
Baytown, TX 77522
713/425-3300
Ms. Eugenia Flatow
Coalition for the Bight
121 Avenue of Americas
Suite 501
New York, NY 10013
212/431-9700
Mr. Kevin P. Gildart
Bath hon Works
700 Washington Street
Bath, ME 04530
207/443-3311
Mr. Andy Manus
State of Delaware
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Conservation
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
3021739-4411
Ms. Nancy McKay
Executive Director
Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority
P.O. Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
206/464-7320
Ms. Beth Millemin
Coast Alliance
235 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20003
202/546-9554
Mayor Paul Noto
Village Hall
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
914/381-5500
Mr. Steve Richie
Regional Water Quality
Control Board
2101 Webster St., Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
510/464-0516
-------
Ms. Dixie Sansom
Florida State Representative
P.O. Drawer 373697
Satellite Beach, FL 32937-0697
4071777-8100
773-5212
Ms. Amy Zimpher
San Francisco Estuary Project
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94604-2050
510/464-7990
744-1952
-------
Ex-Officio
Ms. Loretta Barsamian
W-73
75 Hawthorn Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
4151744- 1953
Mr. Jim Burgess
Chief, CPD
OCRMJCPD
1825 Connecticut Ave., SW
Room 724
Washington, DC 20235
202/606-4152
Ms. Elizabeth Jester
Chief, Monitoring Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW, (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
2021260-7046
Ms. Marian Mlay
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Coastal Protection Division
499 South Capitol Street, SW (WH-556F)
Fairchild Building, Room 811
Washington, DC 20003
2021260-1952
Ms. Gwen Ruta
EPA Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617/565-4423
-------
7
-------
8
-------
4/27/92
Monitoring Branch Highlights for OWOW National Meeting
U Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring having its second
meeting May 20 — 21. EPA chairs this Task Force, with USGS as
vice chair. Four Task Groups (on national monitoring
framework, environmental indicators, data collection methods,
and data information sharing) have been meeting and will
report results at the May meeting. Goal is preliminary
recommendations to 0MB in December, and final recommendations
and implementation the two years following. Eight federal
agencies (EPA, USGS, NOAA, Corps, USDA, Energy, FWS, and 0MB
itself, and $ states sit on the Task Force. We set up an
internal EPA advisory committee to ensure HQ and Regional EPA
staff are informed and can contribute to this effort.
• Environmental Indicators. OW committee chaired by OWOW, many
regional staff on 4 subcommittees —— biological integrity,
human health, loadings, and designated uses. We’re working
closely with EMAP.
• 305(b). 1990 report issued March 17; printed copies due in
May. State 1992 reports due April 1; 11 states at HQ as of
April 17. Consistency workgroup for 1994 Guidelines will be
formed soon.
• Volunteer Monitoring. Third National conference a big
success, over 300 attendees. Volunteer groups will form a
National Association. We urge Regions that have not already
done so to designate a volunteer monitoring coordinator.
• Biological monitoring. Workgroups just formed for Lake and
for Estuary Rapid Bioassessment Protocols. We’re also
reviewing the USGS NAWQA biological protocols for consistency
with ours.
• STORET Modernization
o Staff workgroup formed to help Executive Board guide
modernization effort.
o Nationwide user needs interviews scheduled. In person in
Regions 3,4,5,6,9, Tallahassee, Sacramento, and HQ.
Video conferences in Regions 1,2,7,8,10. We plan a
national users conference to discuss results and options
in October or December 1992.
• GIS. HQ has a GIS, and is acquiring data for it. We hope to
draw on the successes of and lessons learned in the Regional
GIS programs —- Bob King is overseeing this effort.
-------
Office of Water Systems Modernization
ISP Interview Schedule
April 1,2,3 JAD/Interviews Region Ill Completed Chuck Kanetsky
FTS-597-81 76
April 14,1 5,16 JAD/Interviews Region V Cancelled John Miller
FTS-353-721 0
April 21.22,23 JAD/Interviews Region VI Completed Charlie Howell
FTS-255-2289
April 29 Discussion Region I Scheduled Ray Thompson
FTS-828-6372
May 4.5 JAD/Interviews Sacramento Scheduled Sheryl Baughman
FTS-460-4923
May 6,7 JAD/Interviews Region IX Scheduled Olaf Hansen
FTS-484-1 993
May 19 Discussion Region II Video Conf. Randy Braun
2:00-4:00 ET FTS-340-6692
May 28 Discussion Edison Video Conf. Randy Braun
2:00-4:00 ET FTS-340-6692
May 20 Discussion Region VII Video Conf. John Helvig
3:00-5:00 ET FTS-276-5002
May 21 Discussion Region VIII Video Conf. Jim Luey
3:00-5:00 El FTS-330-1 425
May 27 Discussion Region X Video Conf. Gretchen Haystip
4:00-6:00 El FTS-399-1685
June 11.12 JAD/lnterviews Tallahassee Scheduled Dave Gowan
904-487-0505
June 9,10.11 JAD/Interviews Region IV Scheduled Lorinda Gronner
FTS-257-21 26
June 18,19 JAD/Interviews Headquarters Scheduled Bob King
FTS-260-7028
July 1.2 Jad/Interviews Headquarters Scheduled Bob King
FTS-260-7028
EPA’s Office of Water (OW) has begun an effort to modernize the STORET/BIOS/ODES data
base management systems. The OW Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds will be
conducting Regional visits and video conferences during April, May and June to gather
information, ideas and concerns from interested people in the Regions and States. Regional
visits will include one-on-one interviews with Division and Branch level managers and a two-day
Joint Application Development session with Regional and State participants to focus on the
current and future water quality information needs. Two-hour video conferences will be held in
Regions where visits could not be arranged. If you have any questions, call the Regional
contact above.
-------
.s,3 9
What is Joint Application Design (JAD)?
JAD is a structured meeting, led by an impartial session leader, designed to enable
you to concisely specify business requirements. Two definitions for JAD are cited:
‘A structured meeting designed to extract high-quality information from
users in a compressed tirneframe using visual aids and a workshop
environment to enhance the process.”
“An approach, using a neutral question-elicitor to lead users through a
structured, yet flexible process to reach consensus about a pre-deteiiiiiiied
subject.” -
The process takes the place of independent interviews conducted by systems analysts
and replaces that with a structured meeting in which key users attend. This way,
issues are settled immediately, decisions are made more quickly, the
communication between the participants is defined more clearly, and you provide
direct input into the design of the future business system.
The use of JAD has been documented in many companies to enhance productivity
as much-as 60%. The process is a workshop. During the JAD session, all participants
will work hard to define their requirements. The session leader will ensure that the
meeting stays on course and that the deliverables are produced. This saves time,
ensures that nothing is missed, and that all participants are heard.
Water Quality Monitoring JAD Agenda
The purpose of the JAD workshop will be to define the information needed by State
and Regional environmental managers to plan, operate, and evaluate ambient
water quality and biological monitoring programs. The workshop is not intended to
address the technological aspects of a new information systems environment. We
will focus on the requirements for those programs from a business perspective, such
as the critical decisions and program actions that must be supported, and the
information needed to support those decisions and actions.
-------
31! 92
JAD SESSION AGENDA
DAY 1 8:30 - 4:00
1. Introduction - This step will kickoff the meeting and review the administrative
topics, such as workshop schedule, personal introductions, walkthrough of the
agenda, discussion of workshop groundrules, and fielding of questions about the
process.
2. Project Purpose and Scope, and Workshop Purpose - This step will validate a
statement of project purpose and scope, and review the objectives of the workshop.
3. Environmental Programs - In this step we will elicit the relevant water quality
monitoring programs, e.g., 301(h), NEPs, EMAP, in which the participants are
involved. For each program, we will identify the essential uses of monitoring
information, such as the decisions that must be supported, the types of conclusions
the information must be able to support, and the actions that are taken as a result of
using the information.
4. Information Needs - En this step we will elicit the information needs to support
the monitoring programs identified. Think of information needs as groups of data
items used together in data collection, analyses, reports, etc. We will then link the
information needs to the WQM programs (from step 3). Note that during this
session we will not be collecting information about each data item used in your
water quality-related programs.
DAY2 8:30-4:00
5. Data Problems - During this step we will identify data problems that exist today or
are expected to impact the future. The discussion will focus on identifying specific
problems that relate to each of the following characteristics of data quality:
Completeness - All transactions and all items for each transaction are
available.
Availability - Types of needed data are available in the information
en rn onment.
Accessibility - Data is easily accessible by all appropriate users from the
information environment.
Accuracy - Values are correct for certain items of data.
-------
/31 / 92
Consistency - Data values that need to be the same are in fact the same across
the informatLon environment (particularly interested in data relationships
across systems).
Precision - Data is at a sufficient level of detail to support its intended usage.
Timeliness - Data is available after a sufficient period of time from the point
when the initial business event occurred (that required the data).
Validity - Data collected is what is purports to be? Is it what we really mean?
In addition, each problem will be linked to the information needs (from step 4)
involved and the uses of water quality monitoring information (from step 3) that
are impacted by the problem.
6. System Capabilities - In this step we will identify specific capabilities and features
that would make a difference in your job or positively affect the decisions,
conclusions, or actions taken as a result of water quality monitoring.
7. Workshop Results Review - During this step we will review the work
accomplished and address any questions about the results.
8. Issues Review - In this step we will review each issue and test whether it has been
resolved from discussion. For unresolved issues, we will identify a lead responsible
person and assign timeframes for a proposed a resolution.
9. Workshop Evaluation - As a final step, we will collect feedback from you on a
simple evaluation form. We consider this to be an important step for assessing the
results and for refining the process as necessary.
Note that we will allocate 1 hour for lunch on each day. The exact time will depend
on the current discussion and will be based on a logical breaking point.
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC11ON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR23 19 2 - ______
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECr: GIS Workstation AvailabiMty ,
FROM: Dave Davis, Deput)ir r_ 7 4
Office of Wefi nds,1) Tans aild Watersheds
TO: OWOW Division Directors
OWOW Branch Chiefs
OWOW Section Chiefs
OWOW is very pleased to announce the acquisition of a Geographic Information System (GIS)
- -workstation located in Room 835 of the East Tower. GIS is a tool to efficiently display spatial data
derived from maps, air photographs, satellite imagery, land records and existing digital databases. It
provides a mechanism to integrate spatial data for cross-program, multimedia, and interdisciplinary
environmental assessment, planrnng, and decision-making. It is extensively used in the Regions and
States and can be a significant tool in implementing EPA initiatives including the watershed protection
approach, nonpoint source pollution control, wetlands preservation, coastal programs, water quality
status and trends, etc.
Bob King in AWPD Monitoring Branch is
currently reviewing Regional GIS
applications for mounting on this
workstation to serve as examples of spatial
analysis. These menu-driven applications
can then be used to demonstrate capabilities
for senior managemem and staff. A
working knowledge of ARCIINFO is not
necessary to use the system.
Demonstrations and basic training sessions
for this system will be set up within the next two months. I encourage you to attend. Please contact
Mary Baechtel, FTS-260-7057 if you are interested in accessing the system.
CC: Michelle Helter
Wendy Blake-Coleman
Cynthia Puskar
Regional Monitoring Coordinators
WORKSTATION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Data General AViiON Series 4 Workstation with 28
megabytes RAM and 2 gigabytes disk storage.
Input devices include 3 ‘.4 floppy diskette,
CDIROM, and 150 megabyte tape drives. Output
devices include Ethernet connection to Postscript
color printer and electostatic plotter in the WIC.
Pruued i Ricyc!.dPaptr
-------
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, D.C.
20460
TIlE RESOURCES
EPA has developed the following materials that may be of help to
volunteer monitoring programs:
o National Directory of Citizen Volunteer Environmental
Monitoring Programs, EPA 503/9-90-004, April 1990.
o Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers,
EPA 440/4-90-010, August 1990.
o Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual, EPA
440/4-91-002, December 1991.
o The Volunteer Monitor (newsletter)
o Nonpoint Source News Notes (newsletter)
o Coastlines (newsletter)
o The Water Monitor (monthly newsletter)
o USEPA Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Computer
Bulletin Board System (BBS) (tel: 301-589-0205). User’s
Manual, EPA 503/8-92-002, January 1992.
o Wetlands Hotline (tel: 1-800-832-7828)
o American Wetlands Month (brochure)
o Clean Lakes Clearinghouse (database. Tel: 800-726-LAKE)
Many of the EPA Regional Offices have prepared additional
educational materials that are of value to volunteers. For further
information on EPA’s volunteer monitoring activities, write to:
Alice Maylo
Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator
USEPA, Assessment Division (WH-553)
401 M St. SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
1 EPA VOLUNTEER WATER
MONITORING PROGRAM
March 1992
1 -
-------
EPA AND VOLUNTEER WATER MONITORING
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Water
supports the volunteer monitoring movement nationwide.
Why does a Federal regulatory agency care about the efforts of
citiz.en volunteers?
o Water pollution is a complex problem. We know that
polluted wet weather runoff from areas such as farms,
lawns, city streets, construction sites, eroded stream banks,
and mines is the leading source of contaminants in our
Nation’s waters. EPA is required by statute to support and
oversee State efforts to monitor water quality and locate and
solve pollution problems. But State resources are limited.
Citizen volunteer monitors can help by collecting good data.
o As citizens learn how to monitor their streams, lakes,
wetlands, and coastal waters, they learn about water
resources and how they work — and about pollution. They
learn how their everyday actions -- things as basic as how
they apply pesticides to their lawns or how they dispose of
their used automotive oil -. can affect the waters in which
they fish or swim. They become involved in protecting
water quality. They become, in short, stewards of their
environment.
EPA therefore supports State use of volunteer data through grants
and guidance and works to spread (be word” about volunteer
monitoring through conferences, directories, and outreach.
Additional EPA actions in support of volunteers will include a
clearinghouse of volunteer monitoring information and increased
coordination with other Federal agencies.
ThE PROGRAM
In April 1991, EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW)
was created within the Office of Water. OWOW was established out of
recogmtion that all our water resources are interconnected and require an
integrated management and protection approach. OWOW’s Watershed
Protection Approach emphasizes monitoring and management activities on a
basinwide scale; citizen participation in this approach is vital.
Each of OWOW’s Divisions carry out activities that help support the
volunteer movement:
o OWOW’s Assessment and Watershed Protection Division issues
monitoring guidance for States; coordinates with Federal and State
agencies on monitoring issues; produces monitoring methods
manuals; sponsors conferences and other information exchange
activities; and supports State-level volunteer monitoring programs
through the Section 314 (Clean Lakes) and 319 (Nonpoint Source)
programs.
o OWOW’s Oceans and Coastal Protection Division develops
monitoring guidance related to coastal and marine waters; supports
conferences and other information exchange activities; coordinates
and manages the National Estuary Program and the Near Coastal
Waters Program; and supports the use of grant hinds under Section
320(g) to include volunteer monitoring in these programs.
o OWOW’s Wetlands Division manages public education, information,
and outreach activities related to wetlands protection (including the
Wetlands Hotline and American Wetlands Month) and develops and
improves approaches for wetlands protection.
THE ROLE OF THE EPA REGIONS
EPA’s 10 Regional Offices are actively involved in volunteer water
monitoring. Many of our Environmental Services Divisions and Water
Management Divisions provide technical assistance relating to data quality
control and laboratory methods; help coordinate volunteer programs within
their Regions; manage Clean Lakes and nonpoint source grants; assist in
training; and provide outreach and information exchange. Regional
workshops are being held to bring volunteers together, build partnerships,
and teach new methods.
-------
11/12/91
VOLUNTEER MONITORING WORKPLAN
Objective 1: Establish leadership role in volunteer monitoring
Tasks:
1. Write memo from GG to Water Management Division
Directors/ESD Division Directors informing them of
upcoming volunteer conference and urging they appoint a
volunteer monitoring coordinator and contact me with
name. Include copy of The Volunteer Monitor and
flyer/agenda for conference.
2. Hold conference call with Regional volunteer monitoring
coordinators to:
- give them details on conference and our support
for State travel
- ask for highlights of their activities, if any, in
support of volunteer monitoring
- explain headquarters involvement and ask for input
on needed support, ideas for further activity
- get them networking
- assign them the task of finding out level of State-
supported volunteer monitoring activity.
3. Establish contacts with other Federal agencies involved
(or considering involvement) in volunteer monitoring.
Inform them of upcoming conference, of EPA materials.
4. Maintain liaison with Regional volunteer monitoring
coordinators, OCPD volunteer monitoring coordinator.
Support and attend Regional workshops. Serve as
information hub on EPA volunteer monitoring activities,
publications.
Objective 2: Support volunteer monitoring conference through
leadership on conference steering committee.
Tasks:
5. Work with grantee (Izaak Walton League) to finalize
agenda, develop outlines for presenters, identify
speakers, promote conference, etc.
6. Develop conference presentations/support material for
EPA personnel.
-------
7. Hold periodic steering conui ittee meetings (conference
calls)
8. Attend and participate in volunteer monitoring
conference; provide needed facilitation, coordination.
Ensure attendance/participation of Regional
coordinators. Ensure development of high quality
proceedings.
Objective 3: Finalize methods manuals for volunteers.
Tasks:
9. Print and distribute final lake methods manual.
10. Review first draft and develop second draft of rivers
methods manual (River Watch Network grant).
11. Identify panel of peer reviewers. Coordinate technical
review of river methods manual.
12. Develop third draft of rivers methods manual based on
peer review.
13. Finalize river methods manual and prepare for printing.
14. Print and distribute river methods manual.
Objective 4: Develop additional materials in support of
volunteer monitoring.
Tasks:
15. Draft brochure explaining EPA/OWOW involvement in
volunteer monitoring, uses of volunteer data, etc. (for
OWOW information folder, outreach purposes).
16. Finalize and print brochure.
17. Support development of fourth edition of Directory of
Volunteer Monitoring organizations. Support continuing
publication of The Volunteer Monitor .
18. Produce other materials as needed.
-------
Lntergovernment Ta Ic Force on
Mc Watey(1TFM
Relationship of Monitoring and Indicators Committees
Fe r StaesI rte aa
EPA Ccic acb
uscs C crr o
NOAA De e R) er Bath, Corrr ssb ,
FWS Nei Jersay
USDA W * on
COE 0t o
DOE ScLlh Cwc* a
0MB
A
EMAP
Environmental
Indicators
VA
Nc e Tasl C oi.p Wide kxi
r rt s-sc yu 60as c i 3 M 92
OW Strategic Planning
Steering Committee
Chair David Davis. OWO
- ‘ Chair: Elizabeth Jester. EPA
Vice Chair David Rickert. USGS
ITFM Task Groups
- Intergovernmental Framework
- Data Colle ion Methods
- Data Management and Information Sharing
- Environmental Indicators
EPA Monitoring Intergovernmental
Adv ory Group (MIAG
Chair Elizabeth Jester
Offices represented
OW: CES
OGWDW OPPE
OWOW EMAP
AWPD OIRM
OST EPA Regions
OCP EPA Labs
CelAeev.,ts
O 0w. cP
2O2-26
FTS 26O-55
Steve t.
OWOW. ChN
-2m641 i
FTS 2m-8414
B ry 8ug
OWOW. Ci-
292 26 7O6O
FTS 2m-7060
J ii H ne.
OWEC. Cha
292-2605892
FTS 260-5892
-------
FAC’F SHEET
INTERGOVERNMENTAL TASK FORCE ON MONITORING WATER QUALITY
ISSUE: Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent annually monitoring water quality in the
United States. Nevertheless, the resulting data fall short of the information needed to effectively
manage water quality and associated natural resources and to protect human health and the
environment. Water-quality monitoring in the United States is performed by thousands of Federal,
State, local, public interest groups, private groups, and individuals for a wide variety of purposes.
Roles, objectives, and responsibilities are not clearly defined, and no intergovernmental strategy
links these fragmented efforts into a comprehensive nationwide effort to support effective
decisionmaking. Lack of clear leadership and lack of resources have contributed to a lack of
coordination and cooperation and the inability to obtain an accurate, consistent picture of water
quality over time.
BACKGROUND: These varied monitoring entities perform three quite different kinds of
monitoring (status and trends assessment, management/regulatory program development, and
compliance/program evaluation).
On the Federal level, many agencies monitor for different purposes and parameters:
Department of the Interior (DO!), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce (DOC), Department
of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), and others.
On the State level, agencies manage their own monitoring programs for their own water-
quality planning and assessment purposes. States report some of their information to EPA
which publishes the biennial National Water Quality Inventory (the “305(b) report”) which
gives an aggregated picture of the nature and extent of water-quality problems and activities
across the Nation to address them. State monitoring programs are usually designed to
identify problem waters; therefore, monitoring efforts are generally concentrated in waters
known or suspected to be impaired or waters of highest priority.
• On the local and private level, facilities monitor for compliance, and States monitor to
verify their findings. Those data are not necessarily factored into other local, regional, or
national evaluations of water-quality conditions.
• On a public interest group level, a few organizations such as the Nature Conservancy
maintain data bases with valuable water-quality information, which is sometimes used at
the State level, but rarely at the national level.
• Private citizens engage in water-quality monitoring throughout the country, often through
State-approved programs. These efforts can produce valuable baseline and screening data
on waters that would otherwise be unmonitored. Use of volunteer data is uneven.
PROBLEM: Problems have been associated with water-quality monitoring activities. They are
highlighted below:
• Lack of coordination among the large numbers of monitoring entities results in duplication
and inefficiencies in collecting and using data.
• Quality assurance and quality control procedures are generally inconsistent and inadequate.
This is especially true of field sampling procedures, sample preservation techniques,
l/l3, 2
-------
INTERGOVERNMENTAL TASK FORCE ON MONUORING WATER QUALITY
Status of Activities; April 20, 1992
MISSION
Our mission is to develop and initiate implementation of a strategic plan to achieve effective
collection and presentation of water-quality data to provide a basis for decisionmaking.
This requires implementing a framework to:
o Integrate monitoring efforts
o Use resources more effectively
o Obtain comparable data and consistent reporting of status and trends of water
quality
SCOPE
The scope of the ITFM includes water-quality monitoring and the resulting collection,
management, and use of water-quality information to fulfill the following purposes:
o Identify emerging problems
o Assess status and trends
o Develop management and regulatory programs
o Evaluate program effectiveness and compliance
o Wisely manage the use of environmental and economic resources
FULL ITFM MEETINGS
January 29 - 30, 1992 Washington, DC
o Adopted Mission, Scope, Terms of Reference, established four Task Groups and
agreed on initial direction and products for them.
May 20 - 21, 1992 Washington DC
September 9 - 10, 1992
INTERGOVERNMENTAL I R4MEWORK TASK GROUP
Objectives: 1. Define information that water quality monitoring programs need to
provide over the next decade.
2. Develop a conceptual model for water quality programs to meet the
defmed information needs.
3. Recommend an intergovernmental monitoring framework to meet defined
information needs and improve efficiency of existing programs.
-------
Status:
January 30, 1992, Washington DC Organizational meeting
March 5 - 6, 1992 Las Vegas, Nevada
o Model monitoring program design: Considered draft by Stu MacKenzie
(USGS); will consider revised version at next meeting
o Matrix to record federal monitoring program information: Considered draft
by USGS and EPA; will consider revised version at next meeting
o National monitoring vision statement and policy principles; Mike Liewelyn
(Washington State) and Nancy Lopez (USGS) will develop a draft for next
meeting
o Major monitoring questions to be answered for each of the five major
monitoring types; Group brainstormed list; will refme for next meeting.
o Outline for December 10, 1992 recommendations to 0MB; will consider a
draft at next meeting.
o Items for glossary of terms and defmitions; will submit additions to consider
at next meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS TASK GROUP
Objective: Define questions indicators should answer, recommend core group of indicators for
use governmentwide, and a process for reporting and improving them over time.
Status:
January 30, 1992, Washington DC Organization meeting
March 4, 1992, Washington DC
o Defined environmental indicator; Group defined as a measurable feature of the
ecosystem which singly or in combination provides managerially and scientifically
useful evidence of ecosystem quality, or reliable evidence of trends in quality.
o Questions indicators should answer; group developed list
o Indicator groupings; discussed, Wayne Davis (EPA) will recommend at next
meeting
-------
o Indicator selection criteria; discussed, Sara Gerould (USGS), Ruth Chemerys
(EPA), Chris Yoder (State of Ohio) will present overview of criteria from
different monitoring programs at next meeting
o Outline of Recommendations to 0MB; Discussed draft, will submit ideas to
David Pollison and have revised draft for next meeting.
April 20, 1992
o Outline of Recommendations to 0MB; group approved revised outline; fmal
comments to David Pollison by May 4.
o Indicator groupings; Group discussed groupings by category (fish,
macroinvertebrates, habitat, loadings), resource area (streams, etc) and designated
uses. Wayne Davis (EPA) and Sam Stribling (contractor for EPA) will produce
next draft.
o Indicator selection criteria; Sara Gerould (USGS), Ruth Chemerys (EPA) and
Chris Yoder (State of Ohio) will aggregate their list into criteria categories. New
Task Group paiticipants from Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, and Fish
and Wildlife Service will provide their selection criteria to Ruth.
o Glossary of Terms; Group recommended terms to include in ITFM Glossary.
Sam Stribling will collect and produce next draft.
o Additional agency representation; EPA will check with Department of
Transportation, Park Service, BLM, Army, Minerals Management Service, and
Bureau of Reclamation to see if they use indicators. Members felt a
representative of a Western State should be included.
DATA COLLECTION METHODS TASK GROUP
Objectives: Obtain comparable data collection methods where possible; recommend standard
data qualifiers that allow data to be shared with know levels of confidence.
Status:
January 30, 1992, Washington, DC Organizational meeting
February 20, 1992 Arlington, Virginia
o Comparability in field techniques, sampling and handling water and
sediment; discussed, Marty Brossman (EPA) and Wayne Webb will write
description for next meeting
-------
o Comparability in analytical methods; discussed, Merle Shockey and Ann Strong
(Corps) will write description for next meeting.
o Comparabifity in biological methods: discussed, Chuck Facemire (USFWS) and
Russ Sherer (State of South Carolina) will write description for next meeting
o Comparability in data to enable sharing; Discussed; group will submit ideas
on minimum amount of information associated with a value and with a sample
that is needed to enable comparability of data (chemical, physical or biological)
in laboratory or field.
o Sample Control Center description/methods and ground water minimum data
set; discussed, Marty Brossman (EPA) will provide description for next meeting
o EPA’s EMMC; Discussed comparable effort to Task Group within EPA. Oil
Villa (EPA) will describe at next meeting.
o Performance-based analytical measurements system in EMAP; Heard
presentation by Bob Graves (EPA/EMAP)
May 5, 1992, Arlington, Virginia
DATA MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION SHARING TASK GROUP
Objectives: Ensure data in various systems can be easily shared at known levels of confidence
by: 1) Developing a process design or model for data sharing; 2) Developing a common data
dictionary; and 3) Identifying and coordinating with the various groups concerned with data
sharing.
Status:
January 30, 1992, Washington DC Organizational meeting
March 23 - 24, 1992, Fairfax, Virginia
o Data sharing process; Jim Schomick and John Briggs (USGS) presented various
options for a process design; discussed various components needed including a
distribution network, organizational structure, and data model design; John Briggs
(USGS) will develop options and a preliminary approach for next meeting.
o Data dictionary; di’ cussed the essential need for using the same terminology; as
a start, Bob King (EPA) and Jim Schornick (USGS) will develop a glossary for
the task group for the next meeting.
-------
o Description of other data sharing activities; Brand Neimann and Chris
Bradbuiy (EPA) and Don Dolnack (USGS) presented what their offices are doing
with respect to data bases and described other organizations also working on data
sharing; Brand Neiinann and Wendy Blake-Coleman (EPA) will start developing
a report which will describe these activities which will be part of the first year’s
report.
May 19, 1992, Fairfax, Virginia
-------
April 13, 1992
SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING SECTION 6217(g)
MANAGEMENT MEASURES GUIDANCE
April 6—24 a Further Consultations With Interested Parties
April 9 a Detailed All-Day Meeting with Bob Wayland,
Dave Davis and Trudy Coxe
- Options/recommendations for each
management measure
- Cost and effectiveness information
- Preliminary finding of economic
achievability analyses
April 30 a First Draft of Final Management Measures
Guidance drafted and mailed to Work Group to
review
o First Draft of most Economic Achievability
Analyses completed
May 4-15 a Work Group meetings on management I IeasUreS
guidance with EPA, other Federal and State
representatives
o EPA Work Group Meeting
May 21 0 Brief Assistant Administrator/Assistant
Secretary on major issues
May 25 o Brief 0MB on status and general substance of
analyses
May 1 a Second Draft Economic Achievabiiit’ ’ nalyses
completed
June 1 0 First Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis
completed
June 4 a Briefing of Bob Wayland, Dave Davis and
Trudy Coxe
— Results of economic achievability
analyses
- Regulatory impact analysis
- Final decision (subject to change based
on public comment on costs and
economics)
-------
—2—
June 4—Aug.4 o Changes to Final 6217(g) Guidance,
Responsiveness Summary, Economic
Achievabi 1 ity
Analyses, and Reculatory Impact Analysis
(Assumption is tnat changes are minor)
June 8 o Notice for Public Comment on Economic
Achievability Analyses (30—day)
June 8—26 o Briefings of Senior officials at USDA, DOl,
DOT, USFWS, Army COE, TVA, FERC and other
Federal agencies
o Copies of all drafts sent to Regional Water
Management Division Directors for Regional
review
June 29 o Conference call with Regional Water
Management Division Directors to solicit
their comments and concerns on the Draft
Guidance
June 8-Jul 14 o Responsiveness Sununary for 6217(g) Drafted
o Second Draft Regulatory Analysis Drafted
July 8 o Public Comment Period for Economic
Achievability Analyses End
July 15 a Briefing of Bob Wayland, Dave Davis and
Trudy Coxe
— Summary of public comment on economiC
achievability analyses
- Responsiveness summary for 6217(g)
(Draft)
- Regulatory impact analysis (Draft)
- Federal agency comments/concerns
- Proposed Final 6217(g) (for Red Border
Review)
July 22 a Brief 0MB on results of Economic
Achievability Analysis and Regulatory Impact
Analysis
August 5 o Brief Assistant Administrator/Assistant
Secretary on status, public comments on the
Economic Achievability analysis, and the
Regulatory Impact Analysis
-------
—j —
August 13 Second Conference Call with Regional Water
Management Division Directors
August 20 o Assistant Administrator submits section
6217(g) Guidance for Red Border Review
- Includes economic achievability
analyses, responsiveness summary, and
regulatory impact analysis
August 26 o Brief 0MB on contents of the Final Guidance
submitted to the Regions for Red Border
review
Sept. 7 o Final Conference Call with Regional Water
Management Division Directors
Sept. 3 o Red Border Review ends
Sept. 10 o Briefing of Bob Wayland, Dave Davis and
Trudy Coxe
- Red Border Comments
- Regulatory Impact Analysis
Sept. 14 o Closure meeting with Hank Habicht
Sept. 16 o Final section 6217(g) Guidance submitted for
0MB Review
— Includes economic achievability analyses
and regulatory impact analysis
Sept. 0 0MB Review Completed (assumes 14 days and no
distribution to other Federal agencies)
October 5 o Final 6217(g) Guidance to Assistant
Administrator
October 19 a Assistant Administrator sign the Guidance.
-------
Implementation of §303(d)
Critical Issues for this summer
Background
The agency has taken several steps over the last year to implement CWA §303(d). The
statute requires States to identify waterbodies that do not or will not attain standards, priority
rank the waters, and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to establish the specific
pollution reductions necessary to attain standards. EPA must review and approve State lists and
TMDLs. If a State fails to implement 303(d) in an approvable manner, EPA has a duty to
establish lists and TMDLs.
AWPD issued program guidance in April, 1991, and is in the process of revising the
Water Quality Management regulations. Key implementation provisions from the guidance and
regulation revisions are as follows:
- State submittals are due April 1 of even numbered years (coincident with 305(b));
- States must target those waters for which a TMDL will be developed during the
two-year period following submittal;
- States are encouraged to target challenging high priority waters that involve
problems such as nonpoint source pollution;
- a phased approach to TMDL development may be used in complex situations;
- TMDLs should address non-chemical stressors where they are precluding the
attainment of designated uses, biocriteria, or specific numerical criteria and where
we have information about the relationship between quantified stressor measures
and standards attainment.
In subsequent guidance and in State-EPA workshops held in all Regions this past winter
we have stressed that 303(d) provides an opportunity to integrate programs and address problems
on a watershed-scale basis. Regional and Headquarters representatives have also stressed that
the agency is serious about fully implementing these provisions.
Critical Issues
1. State sub mittals
- Due April 1, 1992
-------
- Procedures for delinquent submissions were developed at the February TMDL
Coordinators meeting including a process for conditional approval
- Regions should be prepared to establish an EPA list including targeted waters if
a State fails to make an approvable submission
2. Implementation Agreements
- Several Regions have established a Region-State workgroup to work out the
details of targeting and TMDL development, review, and approval
- Permits, nonpoint, arid other programs staff should participate in these
workgroups
- State-EPA Implementation Agreements (formerly Technical Agreements) should
be established or revised
3. TMDLs
- Informal goals for complex TMDLs were developed at the February Coordinators
meeting
- Regions may withhold or recover grant funds to support TMDL development in
the absence of an acceptable State program (40 CFR 35. 155(b)(l))
- We have established an expert assistance team and are providing limited financial
support for TMDL development
-------
Notes/handout on the Habitat Cluster
April 8, 1992
Origin
Formed in response to the SAB report Reducing Risk; originally a workgroup under
the Shapiro Committee; became an agency Cluster last fall
Goals
short-term goal is to review and analyze information and develop a range of strategic
options for the Agency
long-terni goals include providing a forum for information exchange, carry out
specific activities and coordinate between Offices
Process
Analysis has focussed on (1) 15 topic papers that assess current knowledge and
programs and develop options (see attached), and (2) an inventory of current EPA
activities related to habitat
A strategic options document will be developed to present key findings and the
Cluster’s recommendations; draft is planned for this Spring, final by this Fall
A number of “immediate implementation” actions are currently being developed for
presentation to the Deputy Administrator
Membership
See attached
Regional Participation
Regions seem to be very active in habitat issues (watershed projects, riparian policies,
comparative risk analyses)
Regions are well-represented on the Habitat Cluster with Regions 3 and 5 particularly
active
OW Participation
So far OWOW has been most active; OGDW is represented; OST and OWEC are
not represented
-------
TOPiC PAPERS AND LEAD AUTHORS
INFORMATION
• Classification systems - Michael Brody, OPPE
• Status and trends information - Jim Serfis, OFA
• Stressors and trends in stressors - Michael Slimak, ORD
• Monitoring methods and programs - Elizabeth Jester, OW
• Demographic and economic trends - Patrick McCabe, OPPE
SCIENCE
• Ecological/economic habitat values - Elaine Suriano, OSWER/P. McCabe, OPPE
• Risk-ba ed geographic targeting - Ossi Meyn, OPPT
• Habitat quality criteria and indicators - Michael Slimak, ORD
• Restoration science and technology - Amy Sosin, OW
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
• Incentives - Ralph Heimlich, OPPE
• Education/public-private partnerships - Maurice LeFranc, OPPE
• Acquisitions/easements programs - Molly Whitworth, OPPE
Regulatory programs - William Painter, OPPE
Non-EPA federal regulatory programs - Jim Serf.s, OFA
International activities - Franklin Moore, OIA
CHabitat Cluster ]
9
-------
HABITAT CLUSTER MEMBERS
Co-Chairs Yvonne Vallette Region 6 Janette Marsh Region 5
Tom Waddell Region I Patrick McCabe OPPE
Timothy Barry OPPE &v 2 Jill Minter OWEC
Bruce Newton OW Full Cluster Members Sue Norton ORE)
Tom Peterson OPPE
Office Representatives Jack Arthur ERL-Duluth Paul Ringold ORD
Lou Blume Region 5 Don Rodgers OPP
Jay Benforado ORD Jeff Booth OIRM Caren Rothstein OW
David Davis OW Tom Born OPPE Chris Solloway OPPE
Mario Delvicario Region 2 Don Brady OW Amy Sosin OW
Thomas Dixon ORI) Michael Brody OPPE William Steen ERL-Athens
Kathy Kaufman OAR Fred Chanania OSW/1O Ingrid Sunzenauer OPP
Barbara Lamborne OIRM David Deegan OPP Michael Troyer ORD
Allen Lucas Region 4 Martin Dieu OPPE Bob Ward OGC
Tom Marshall OGC Rebecca Dils OPPE Dick Worden OPPE
Peter Marx OCLA Thomas Dixon ORD Arthur Weissman OSWER
Susan McDowell Region 3 Dianne Fish OW Molly Whitworth OPPE
Ossi Meyn OTS Will Garvey OW Louise Wise OW
Franklin Moore OIA Suzanne Giannini OPPE David Yount ERL-Duluth
Bill Painter OPPE Marilyn Ginsberg OW
Phi’ip Ross OFA Steve Glomb OW
Margaret Rostker OPP Otto Gutenson OPPE
Jim Serfis OFA Ralph Heimlich OPPE
Mike Slimak ORD Roger Holtorf OPPE
Elaine Sommers Region 10 ElIzabeth Jester OW
Bob Springer Region 5 Peter Jutro ORE)
Kathy Suminerlee OE Karen Klima OW
Elaine Suriano OSWER Maurice LeFranc OPPE
Cathy Tortorici Region 7 Susan MacMullin OW
[ Habitat ClusterJ
4
-------
9
-------
10
-------
11
-------
12
------- |