Nonpoint Source
News-Notes
January 2003, #70
The Condition of the Water-Related Environment
The Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
The Ecological Management & Restoration of Watersheds
Notes on the National Scene
Celebrate the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act
October 18, 2002 marked the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Anniversary
presented an excellent opportunity to:
• Celebrate water quality improvements;
• Enhance public appreciation for the importance of our water resources and educate our
nation's young people;
• Build a better understanding of remaining challenges and solutions; and
• Rekindle the public stewardship ethic and support for watershed protection programs.
In support of these goals, Congress, along with a number of the nation's Governors and national
organizations, have proclaimed 2002 as the Year of Clean Water. The America's Clean Water
Foundation (ACWF), a nonprofit organization formed to coordinate the 20th Anniversary Celebra-
tion in 1992, is again serving as the primary national coordinator of anniversary activities and the
Year of Clean Water. ACWF coordinated a series of events throughout October 2002 to com-
memorate the 30th Anniversary of the CWA. These events are intended to build a base of under-
standing, commitment, and cooperation that will carry on and grow in subsequent years.
National Events
ACWF cooperated with several diverse organizations to host a series of watershed summits for
targeted audiences. From October 6th through 10th, ACWF and the Smithsonian Environmental
Inside this Issue
Notes on the National Scene
Celebrate the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act 1
Nonpoint Source Outreach Toolbox Under Development 3
EPA Recruits TV Meteorologists to Raise Watershed Awareness 4
Up and Coming NFS Management Measures 5
NBWS from States, Tribes, and Localities
Comprehensive Runoff Control Rules Going into Effect into Wisconsin 6
States Show the Money for the Environment! 8
An Environmental Management System—Making a Difference in Virginia 10
Agricultural Notes
Local Cooperation Makes all the Difference in Minnesota 12
Louisiana Master Farmer Program Fights Agricultural NFS Pollution 14
Technical Notes
High Tech Plants Become Gold Mine for Site Cleanups 15
Soy Growers Leaving More Residue 16
New Book Traces Development of Tillage Systems 17
Best Management Practices Manual for Urban Sites 17
Notes on Education
Storm Drain, Watershed Signage Choices Abound 18
Managing Car Washing 19
New Mexico State University Hosts Environmental Design Contest 21
Alabama Builders Self-inspect Storm Water Controls 21
States' Erosion Control Methods Examined 22
Reviews and Announcements
Sea Grant Book Promotes Healthy Watersheds 23
Out of the Gutter in Washington, D.C 23
EPA Publishes Guidance for Beach Grants 23
EPA Releases Needs Report for TMDLs 24
Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Policy Report Released 24
Farm & Home Environmental Newsletter Published 25
Web Sites Worth a Bookmark 25
Datebook 26
The Coupon 27
All issues of News-Notes are accessible on EPA's website: www.epa.gov/OWOW/info/NewsNotes
-------
Celebrate the 30th
Anniversary of the
Clean Water Act
(continued)
Research Center, in cooperation with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Geological Survey (USGS), and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), hosted the Youth Watershed Summit. This Summit
was designed to bring together approximately 200 students and 50 teachers from across the nation
to learn about watershed protection. On October 28th through 30th, ACWF and the Environmen-
tal Alliance for Senior Involvement (EASI) hosted the Senior Watershed Summit, a three-day
watershed protection forum that convened senior citizens from across the nation. From October
30th to November 1st, ACWF cooperated with EPA, USDA, USGS, and NOAA to host the World
Watershed Summit, an international forum designed to bring together 200 government and private
sector leaders from throughout the United States and the world. This three-day summit consisted
of a series of educational, work group, and plenary sessions on technical and policy issues concern-
ing international water resource protection issues.
ACWF also collaborated on a series of conferences and events. From October 21st through 23rd,
ACWF and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA) helped Delaware conduct the Delaware Erosion, Sediment and Storm Water Manage-
ment Conference 2002. The three-day conference consisted of a series of presentations by experts
who shared the latest policy, program, technology and science information in the areas of urban
erosion, sediment and storm water management. On October 17th and 18th, ACWF worked with
the Environmental Law Institute and the University of Virginia School of Law to host Improving
Public Participation & Governance in Water Management Symposium, an international symposium
that explored public participation and governance in watershed management across a range of
scales and in a variety of cultural and political settings.
Finally, ACWF coordinated National Water Monitoring Day, officially held on October 18th.
Citizen monitors, established volunteer monitoring organizations, and federal, state, tribal, and
local monitoring staff from around the nation all participated by collecting water samples some-
time between October 12th and 27th (to allow monitors to plan around weather conditions and
other factors). The monitors then submitted their data online to ACWF, which prepared a snap-
shot look at water quality across the nation. The data are available for viewing on the Year of
Clean Water web site (www.yearofcleanwater.org).
State and Local Events
Government agencies and
Water Topic of the Month
EPA also released a Year of Clean Water web
site at www.epa.gov/water/yearofcleanwater.
The site provides background on the Year of
Clean Water, descriptions of national events,
and a listing of water topics of the month.
January Oceans
February Waste water
March Nonpoint Source Pollution
Awareness
April Storm Water
May Wetlands
private organizations from states around the nation also developed and
registered many regional and local watershed events in support of the
Year of Clean Water. These events promoted public involvement,
provided education and outreach, supported technical exchange, and
documented the status of water quality since the initial passage of the
1972 CWA. For example, on September 28th, the Washington State-
based nonprofit group Gulf Restoration Network hosted When the
Water Runs Dry, a public symposium designed to explore the theme
of maintaining a balance between human water use and environmen-
tal needs. On October 5th and 6th, the Arkansas Watershed Advisory
Group hosted the Watersheds and the Natural State conference,
designed to educate attendees about Arkansas' natural resources and
how to use the watershed approach as a method of conservation and
environmental protection. Other states hosted workshops, field
trips, nature walks, and other activities designed to raise water quality
awareness. For a complete list of activities held by your state, or for
other information about the celebration, visit the Year of Clean
Water web site.
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
Nonpoint Source Outreach Toolbox Under Development
In April 2000 the states (under the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators) and EPA formed the Nonpoint Source Outreach Workgroup to help address the
education and outreach needs of the nonpoint source community. The Workgroup's mission is to
raise public awareness and to foster behavior changes to reduce nonpoint source pollution. By
conducting focus groups and consulting with behavior change experts the Workgroup researched
various techniques to reach the public with a nonpoint source pollution prevention message. The
Workgroup decided that the most effective way to reach the public is to provide the information
and tools necessary for state and local agencies and organizations to launch their own site-specific
NFS pollution outreach campaigns.
The cornerstone of the Workgroup's effort is the creation of an expandable "toolbox" of strategies
and sample materials, initially geared toward changing personal behaviors in and around the home
to prevent nonpoint source pollution (i.e., encouraging personal stewardship). The toolbox will
contain two major parts: (1) a How-to guide for launching a local NFS pollution outreach cam-
paign and (2) sample materials or templates (in various formats) that could easily be tailored to the
community's local problems and barriers to adopting better habits.
The How-to guide expands on the existing outreach guide Getting in Step: A Guide to Effective
Outreach in Your Watershed (available at www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents),
which provides guidance to states and local entities for launching NFS pollution outreach cam-
paigns that are locally meaningful. The expanded guide will provide tips on applying community-
based social marketing techniques, such as how to decide which personal behavior to focus on and
which outreach tool is best suited to watershed-specific issues and target audiences. The guide also
provides information on conducting outreach using mass media, printed materials, and creative,
community-based events, presentations, or other outreach methods (such as watershed fairs,
contests, water bill inserts, hotlines, and discount cards). A video version of the manual will
accompany the guide. The 30-minute video will showcase four watershed community events
around the country and the outreach techniques they used to accomplish their goals.
The updated guide and video are scheduled to be completed by early 2003, and distribution
information is available at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/outreach.html. The Workgroup also plans to
initiate work on the second part of the toolbox (creating sample materials or templates) at the
beginning of 2003.
[For more information, contact Jack Wilbur, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. Phone: (801)
538-7098; e-mail:jackwilbur@utah.gov. Also contact Don Waye, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 566-1170; e-mail:
waye. don@epa.gov.]
March is Nonpoint Source
Awareness Month
Nonpoint source pollution impacts and prevention are being highlighted in the
President's Year of Clean Water initiative. EPA has developed new brochures, fact
sheets, a bookmark, and a poster to help get the word out about what citizens and
government agencies can do to address nonpoint source pollution. Two of the less
conventional items being used to spread the message are a crossword puzzle
placemat that encourages restaurant patrons to "Take the Stormwater Runoff
Challenge" and a pop-up sponge to promote low-impact development. Information on
Nonpoint Source Awareness Month, including a product order form, will be available by
March 1 through links atwww.epa.gov/nps and www.epa.gov/water/yearofcleanwater.
y
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
EPA Recruits TV Meteorologists to Raise Watershed Awareness
Millions of Americans tune into their local news each day to find out if it's going to rain on their
picnic, if school will be closed because of snow, or if it will be too hot to go jogging. EPA hopes
that when they do so, they can learn a little about their watershed and water quality while they are
at it. On June 26, 2002, Governor Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator, spoke to
meteorologists from across the country about the role they can play in bringing environmental
information to the public. Whitman spoke as part of the Eyes on the Environment workshop at the
American Meteorological Society's (AMS) 31st Conference on Broadcast Meteorology in
Williamsburg, Virginia.
In her remarks, Whitman noted that, "we know that Americans trust you as a source of credible
information. We also know you have the experience and the tools to make science real and
accessible to people in just a minute or two, day in and day out. My long range forecast for this
effort is simple: together, we will help people everywhere better understand what a watershed is and
how important sensible watershed management is to meeting the water challenges we face in the
years ahead."
The AMS and EPA co-sponsored the workshop, which was attended by approximately 130
broadcast meteorologists. The goal of the workshop was to provide information on watersheds and
demonstrate to weathercasters the process of bringing watershed information to their viewers.
AMS's Executive Director, Dr. McPherson, said that he envisions the meteorologist as the "station
scientist"—the person that the station turns to when science issues arise, particularly environmen-
tal ones. "I would also like to see AMS Sealholders (meteorologists meeting established criteria for
scientific competence and effective communication skills in their broadcast presentations) increas-
ingly regarded by the public as reliable sources of information on a broader range of environmental
issues. Eyes on the Environment will help our broadcasters achieve that."
The workshop showcased an innovative Chesapeake Bay program launched by Washington D.C.'s
NBC4, in partnership with the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation
(NEETF), USD A Forest Service, and others, in February 2002. Bob Ryan, Chief Meteorologist
for NBC4, showed a video clip from the February news launch, which included an interview with
Whitman, and a 3-minute segment on the Chesapeake Bay. The feature showed a dramatic zoom-
in from outer space to a close-up of the 64,000 square-mile watershed. The zoom-in, developed
by StormCenter Communications, used a series of stunning NASA satellite images and provided
viewers with a powerful visualization of the expansive Chesapeake Bay. Ryan also demonstrated
the station's interactive web site, Where the Atmosphere Meets the Earth (www.watershed.interactive-
environment.com) .
The NBC4/Chesapeake Bay pilot project has since aired several other watershed-related stories,
including an interview with USDA Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, who discussed the role of
forests and trees in providing healthy watersheds and clean water and the threats to the nation's
forests from urbanization, fire, and other factors. In March, Bob Ryan also helped promote the
annual Potomac River watershed cleanup during a weather report and encouraged viewers to visit
the web site for more information. Feedback on the Chesapeake Bay project has been overwhelm-
ingly positive. Dan Parks, a resident of Rockville, Maryland, wrote, "This site is probably the
smartest thing I have ever seen a television station do in a long time. Finally I can find out how to
participate in cleaning up my neighborhood. Kudos to Bob Ryan and his weather team! I have
always watched the weather on Channel 4 and it is good to know I have chosen a winner!" NBC4
also posts weekly news stories about watershed-related issues on its web site, including a number of
updates about the drought plaguing the Mid-Atlantic.
While the Chesapeake Bay is the focus for this pilot project, the long-term goal is to encourage and
train other broadcast meteorologists across the country to talk about weather, watersheds, and
other timely environmental issues. Weather events, such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
EPA Recruits TV
Meteorologists to
Raise Watershed
Awareness
(continued)
directly impact the quality of our water resources. Teaming up with local news meteorologists
could be an extremely effective tool to teach people about watershed issues. Consider the follow-
ing:
• More people tune in to the weather report on televison than any other segment of local news
reporting, including sports.
• Weather reports use visual images to communicate complex scientific terms and ideas.
'Satellite data' and 'doppler radar' are two examples that now are part of the mainstream
vernacular.
Other stations across the country have been
broadcasting watershed issues for several
years, including:
• WWLTV, New Orleans, Louisiana, which
provides bacteria counts in Lake
Ponchartrain, www.wwltv.com/weather/
lakequal.html
• Weathercaster Loren Nancarrow, KGTV, San
Diego, California, who gives "Environmental
Field Notes,"
www.thesandiegochannel.com/weather
WPTZ, Lake Champlain, Vermont, which
broadcasts weekly news stories about Lake
Champlain activities,
www.thechamplainchannel.com/
champlain2000
• Web sites affiliated with local news broadcasts receive significant
hits each month.
• Weather broadcasters and watersheds are a natural link; the very
functioning of a watershed begins with the weather.
The weather reports provide a unique opportunity for public under-
standing of complex natural systems. A television meteorologist can
incorporate into the weather report a series of do's and don'ts around
the house and in the yard. In the long-term, weather forecasts offer
an ideal opportunity for meteorologists to convey important environ-
mental information that is relevant to the American public.
This growing partnership effort with broadcast meteorologists
represents an important first step in meeting one of the key recom-
mendations that emerged from last year's National Watershed Forum.
The delegates to the Forum endorsed a national media campaign to
educate Americans about watersheds. If the vision for this project is
ever fully realized, 'watershed' may one day become a household
word. Readers are encouraged to work with their local television
meteorologist to share watershed, stream, and lakes-related messages on the air.
[For more information, contact Patricia Scott, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 4501T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 566-1292; e-mail:
scott.patricia@epa.gov. For the full text of the Administrator's speech, as well as other background on
this project, visit www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/weather.]
Up and Coming NPS Management Measures
EPA continues to finalize the National Management Measures guidance series. Each document is a
technical guidance and reference document for use by local, state, and tribal managers in the
implementation of nonpoint source pollution management programs. Following is a brief update
on the up and coming guidances.
• The draft National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban
Areas is open for public review and comment at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/
index.html. It contains information on the best available, economically achievable means of
reducing pollution of surface and ground water from urban areas. Please send comments by
January 15, 2003, to Rod Frederick, EPA, atfrederick.rod@epa.gov.
• The National Management Measures to Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas for
the Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution will be finalized in December 2002. This guid-
ance is intended to provide the best available, economically achievable means of reducing
nonpoint source pollution of surface and ground water through the protection and restora-
tion of wetlands and riparian areas, as well as the implementation of vegetated treatment
systems. A copy of the draft document can be found at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
Up and Coming wetlands.html. CD-ROM copies can be requested from Chris Solloway, EPA, at
NFS Management solloway.chris@epa.gov.
Measures
(continued) ' The National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry is
nearly complete. A draft was made available for public review and comment last fall. The
final version, modified based upon comments received, will be available for distribution in
December 2002. For more information, contact Chris Solloway.
• The National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture is
also nearing completion. The draft guidance was announced in the Federal Register on
October 17, 2000. A final guidance is expected this winter. For more information contact
Stuart Lehman, EPA, at lehman.stuart@epa.gov.
News from States, Tribes, and Localities
Comprehensive Runoff Control Rules Going into Effect into Wisconsin
The State of Wisconsin is taking a new approach to controlling polluted runoff. A few years ago,
the Wisconsin Legislature and the Governor were faced with bad news - urban and rural sources of
polluted runoff were the leading cause of surface and groundwater quality problems in Wisconsin
and posed a long-term risk to the state's water resources. In response, the Legislature directed the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to develop performance standards to control
polluted runoff from both agricultural and non-agricultural activities. On October 1, 2002, these
performance standards finally went into effect after years of hard work and compromise by DNR
staff and diverse stakeholders statewide.
A Long Road
To develop the standards, DNR worked with the other state agencies that have pollution
control responsibilities: Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protec-
tion and its Departments of Commerce and Transportation. DNR relied on a diverse advisory
committee and several work groups to provide feedback and recommendations during the
design process. To ensure public awareness and involvement, DNR and its partners hosted 34
public hearings in 17 locations around the state in 2000 and 2001. DNR staff made signifi-
cant revisions to the draft performance standards based on more than 4,000 verbal and
written comments received during the comment period. As a result, "Wisconsin now has the
most comprehensive set of performance standards in the country," says DNR's Carol Holden.
"We are the first state to implement comprehensive rules for agricultural, non-agricultural,
and transportation-related activities."
Non-Agricultural Standards
The non-agricultural performance standards address activities in developed urban areas, fertilizer
application on large turf areas, and construction and post-construction phases of commercial,
residential, and transportation-related development areas. The non-agricultural standards include
requirements such as controlling post-construction runoff, capturing and infiltrating runoff on
site, implementing protective buffers around water bodies, and implementing storm water manage-
ment plans in developed urban areas (see box).
"The non-agricultural performance standards mirror the Storm Water Phase II requirements for
municipalities but go a step further and define them," explains Holden. "For instance, the con-
struction performance standard requires the construction erosion control plan to identify BMPs
that will reduce sediment loss by 80 percent. The illicit discharge and pollution prevention Phase
II requirements are defined in our developed urban area performance standard. We included a
requirement for municipalities that apply fertilizers to pervious areas of 5 acres or more to do so in
conformance with a fertilizer application plan based on a soil test. We created an additional
performance standard that requires the same thing of non-municipal turf areas, such as private golf
courses."
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
Comprehensive
Runoff Control
Rules Going into
Effect into
Wisconsin
(continued)
Agricultural Standards
Agricultural performance standards and prohibitions are intended to protect water quality by
minimizing the amount of soil erosion, nutrients from manure and croplands, and other agricul-
tural nonpoint source pollutants that enter waterways. The agricultural standards include require-
ments such as reducing sheet, wind, and rill erosion on cropland; minimizing risk of failure,
leakage, or overflow when installing, altering, or closing manure storage facilities; diverting clean
runoff away from areas with pollution potential (i.e., barnyards, feedlots); following a nutrient
management plan; and properly managing manure. For a complete description of both the
agricultural and non-agricultural performance standards, as well as the timeline for implementa-
tion, see www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/nps/admrules.html.
Implementing the Standards
Implementation and enforcement of the standards and prohibitions will occur primarily at the
local government level (counties and municipalities). The rules will be phased in through 2013.
Although DNR has ultimate enforcement authority, its implementation responsibilities are in-
tended to be limited to those areas where local units of government do not implement or enforce
the rules. In these cases, the DNR will be targeting its efforts at
high priority water quality areas, such as waters designated by the
state as Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters, waters on
the federal list of impaired waterbodies, and source water protection
Applying the Standards at the
Local Level
All local governments in Wisconsin's
developed urban areas (population densities
of greater than 1,000 people per square mile)
must implement a storm water management
plan that includes public education, leaf and
grass management where appropriate,
application of nutrients on municipally owned
property in accordance with a nutrient
application schedule, and detection and
elimination of illicit discharges. Public
education programs are to address proper
management of leaves, grass clippings, lawn
and garden fertilizers and pesticides, pet
wastes, oil and other chemicals to reduce
polluted runoff.
"We anticipate that the DNR and the local
governments will work together to educate the
public," explains DNR's Carol Holden. "The
localities will use materials that are developed
or identified by the DNR. To better prepare the
affected municipalities, the DNR plans to offer
a series of outreach activities for local
government staff during the next year."
areas.
The new standards will impact a variety of stakeholders, including
local governments, golf course and parkland managers, and farmers.
While an urban grant program is available to fund some projects,
many local governments and large acreage turf grass owners must
identify their own funding mechanisms for long-term implementa-
tion and operation/maintenance of the non-agricultural perfor-
mance standards. "Local governments can raise fees through the
creation of storm water management utilities that can include
previously tax-exempt entities," explained Holden.
To avoid placing an excessive economic burden on the farmers, the
farmers are not expected to comply with the standards without
financial assistance. "We can't enforce the standards unless we
provide cost-share to the farmers—at least 70 percent and some-
times more in cases of economic hardship." However, cost sharing
is not required for new facilities/practices or for practices required
of a livestock operation with a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit (those facilities with more than 1,000
animals).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If the rule is implemented for more than 10 years, the annual cost is
estimated at $65 million. "Statewide implementation is not going to
happen overnight," added Holden. "The recent budget shortfalls may limit how quickly the rules
are applied and enforced at the local and state levels. However, once the law is on the books
localities have a means for enforcement—something they did not have before," explains Holden.
"We look at these standards as another mechanism to help local conservation staff members get
their job done."
[For more information contact Carol Holden, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, P. O. Box
7921, Madison, I/I// 53707. Phone: (608) 266-0140; e-mail: carol.holden@dnr.state, wi,us; Internet:
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/nps/admrules.html.]
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
States Show the Money for the Environment!
Many states are finding innovative ways to fund water quality projects these days. In the past, state
and local programs depended on the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund and EPA section 319
grant program to fund nonpoint source pollution projects in their communities. States are
increasingly relying on a greater diversity of programs to boost environmental funding. Nothing is
out of the question. State lottery proceeds, license plate funds, state general funds, bond referenda,
and targeted taxes and credits are all being used to protect our waters from nonpoint source
pollution.
Watersheds Win the Lotto!
Over the years state lotteries have donated proceeds to various projects including education,
gambling addiction prevention, and state general funds. Many state lotteries, including Arizona,
Colorado, Nebraska, Oregon, and Minnesota, are now also dedicating a portion to environmental
issues.
The Nebraska Power Ball Lottery donates 49 percent of its proceeds to the Nebraska Environmen-
tal Trust Fund (www.environmentaltrust.org), which in turn distributes the money to public and
private watershed stakeholders through an environmental grant program. The Trust gives priority
to projects that address one or more of four areas: habitat, surface and ground water quality, waste
reduction, and carbon management. Previously funded projects have ranged from hosting house-
hold hazardous waste collection events and installing recycling trailers to improving runoff man-
agement, installing cropland buffer strips, and restoring stream corridors. Since 1994, the Trust
has awarded more than 700 grants totaling $64 million.
The Minnesota Lottery (www.lottery.state.mn.us/moneygo.html) also directs funds to benefit the
environment. The lottery channels 40 percent of lottery net proceeds, or about 6 cents of every
dollar spent on lottery tickets, into the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund
(www.lottery.state.mn.us/etf.html). Typically the Trust Fund receives approximately $25 million
each year to finance projects that restore, preserve, and enhance the state's natural resources. Since
the lottery began in 1990, the Trust Fund has financed 217 projects totaling more than $108
million. Since 2000, at the Minnesota Legislature's direction, the lottery has channeled an addi-
tional 40 percent of lottery net proceeds to two state funds—the Fish and Game Fund and the
Natural Resources Fund. The state uses these funds to support projects ranging from development
of recreation facilities to wetland restoration. The remaining 20 percent of lottery proceeds fund
public education, health and human services, and public safety programs.
License Plate Funds Improve the Environment
Many states have turned to specialty license plates to help earn money for the environment.
Special designs dedicated to environmental protection improve citizen awareness and sell quickly
once drivers know their fees go to help protect local watersheds. Typically the annual cost for a
specialty license plate is between $20 and $40 more than a standard license plate. A portion of the
extra fee is retained by the motor vehicle agency to pay administrative costs, and the remainder is
directed to environmental protection.
Many states offer specialty plates that support the efforts of state agencies to implement conserva-
tion projects. For instance, Virginia recently developed a "Wildflower" plate that supports the
Department of Transportation's efforts to incorporate native plants in its roadway landscaping and
stabilization projects. Tennessee's "Natural Areas" license plate channels money into the State
Lands Acquisition Fund, through which a number of conservation-related state organizations
acquire unique natural areas for state parks, state forests, state natural areas, boundary areas along
state scenic rivers, and easements.
Many states also offer specialty plates that support local, statewide, or national conservation
organizations. These organizations then ensure the license plate funds are used to implement its
specific conservation mission. California offers a Lake Tahoe plate that provides funding for
8 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
States Show the
Money for the
Environment!
(continued)
various environment restoration and enhancement projects undertaken by the nonprofit Tahoe
Conservancy or local governments under contract with the Conservancy. Florida offers a "Con-
serve Wildlife" license plate that provides funds to the Wildlife Foundation of Florida, Inc., a
nonprofit organization supporting habitat protection and restoration activities of the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission. A number of states, including Texas, Tennessee, North
Carolina, and Pennsylvania, offer "Ducks Unlimited" plates that support wetland restoration
efforts.
Many states channel environmental license plate proceeds into environmental trust funds. Indiana
offers an environmental license plate that supports the Indiana Heritage Trust Program's statewide
efforts to acquire, preserve, and enhance land for new and existing state parks and forests, nature
preserves, fish and wildlife areas, wetlands, trails, and river corridors. Massachusetts offers three
different specialty conservation license plates, the proceeds from which are directed to the Massa-
chusetts Environmental Trust for providing grants to educate the public and preserve the state's
environment.
Some state programs are more localized in nature. The New Jersey Meadowlands license plate
supports the efforts of the Meadowlands Conservation Trust, a public/private partnership, to
acquire environmentally valuable land and to preserve and enhance the environment of the
Hackensack Meadowlands District and the Hackensack River Watershed.
Making General Funds Work for the Environment
North Carolina dedicates a portion of its surplus general funds (an account created by revenues
and other income sources to maintain and operate all state agencies) to support the environment.
In 1996 North Carolina's General Assembly established the Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) to help finance projects that specifically address water pollution. At the end of any
fiscal year with a surplus, 6.5 percent of the unreserved credit balance in North Carolina's General
Fund (or a minimum of $30 million) goes into the CWMTF. Grantees may use money from the
CWMTF to acquire land or easements for riparian buffers or watershed protection; to restore
wetlands, buffers, and watershed lands; to repair failing wastewater treatment systems; and to
improve storm water controls and management practices. Since 1997 the CMTWF
(www.cwmtf.net) has funded 234 projects for a total of $211 million, including a recent water-
front/greenway project designed to reduce the negative effects of nonpoint source runoff by
constructing a storm water treatment wetland.
Letting Voters Decide
Many states are asking their voters to direct state money spending—and those voters are choosing
natural resource protection. Voters in Florida and California recently supported their state's sale of
bonds to support nonpoint source pollution prevention and other conservation projects. How do
bonds work? Rather than going to a bank and asking for a loan, the state sells bonds, which is like
asking investors for a loan. In return, investors receive interest on a regular basis, plus the full
repayment of the loan at the end of the term.
In November 1998 Florida citizens voted on whether they wanted to support passage of the
Florida Forever Program. Over 72 percent of voters said yes. This 10-year, $300 million dollar per
year program requires the state to adequately provide for conservation of natural resources and
authorizes the sale of bonds to finance acquisition and improvements of land for conservation,
outdoor recreation and related purposes. Florida also issues other previously approved conserva-
tion bonds that fund construction of pollution control facilities, storm water management, and
cleanup of contamination from leaking petroleum storage tanks. For more information see
www.dbf.state.fl.us/cafr2001/bonded_debt_info.pdf.
California voters supported similar efforts. In March 2000 California voters approved Proposition
13, the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 (2000 Water Bond), authorizing the state to sell $1.97
billion in general obligation bonds to support nonpoint source control, safe drinking water, flood
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
-------
States Show the protection, and water reliability projects throughout the state. For more information on
Money for the California's Water Bond Program, see www.swrcb.ca.gov/propl3/index.html.
Environment!
(continued) Targeted Taxes and Tax Credits
Some states, such as New Jersey, rely on specific taxes to support natural resource protection. Each
year the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection receives $5 million from state
corporate business tax receipts to implement watershed management and nonpoint source pollu-
tion control efforts. For more information see www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/financial_
resources.htm.
Instead of taxing its businesses to fund nonpoint source pollution control, the state of Oregon now
offers tax credits. Oregon allows entities to claim "pollution control facilities tax credit" to cover
expenditures for on-the-ground management practices and improvements, including plans,
projects, or strategies to reduce or control nonpoint source pollution. In essence, this program
subsidizes businesses for their efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution. More information
about Oregon's pollution reduction tax credit program may be found at www.deq.state.or.us/msd/
taxcredits/factsheets/2002NPSfactsheet.pdf.
These diverse funding options, ranging from lottery proceeds to tax credits, are becoming more
prevalent as states seek more innovative ways to fund their nonpoint source protection and other
conservation projects. These efforts will be rewarded as communities around the country continue
to demand better environmental quality and protection.
[For more information about nonpoint source pollution funding, visit www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
funding.html.]
An Environmental Management System—Making a Difference in Virginia
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is leading by example. In June 2001
the DEQ completed what is thought to be the first ISO 14001-compliant state agency environ-
mental management system (EMS) in the country. An EMS is a tool that helps an organization
achieve its environmental obligations and performance goals by providing a methodology to
systematically evaluate and manage environmental activities, products, and services. Implementing
an EMS is still voluntary but is encouraged by the EPA and other organizations that have seen the
economic and environmental benefits an EMS can provide. DEQ's EMS has led to several opera-
tional changes, including the installation of energy-saving devices, implementation of a water
conservation plan, and development of a rain garden to capture and treat parking lot runoff.
The EMS Process
DEQ's EMS is based on ISO 14001, the International and American National Environmental
Management System Specification developed by the International Organization for Standardiza-
tion, located in Geneva, Switzerland. The ISO 14001 EMS is designed to ensure a continual cycle
of planning, implementing, reviewing, and improving the actions that an organization takes to
meet its environmental obligations. DEQ tailored the basic ISO 14001 EMS to suit its needs.
"Although some businesses and local governments throughout the country have completed ISO-
compliant environmental management systems, we believe Virginia DEQ is the first statewide
agency to take the initiative to implement one," explained Harry Gregori, Jr, who heads DEQ's
Division of Pollution Prevention and Compliance Assistance.
DEQ challenged all businesses and industries in Virginia to also complete a voluntary EMS. By
developing one itself, DEQ has demonstrated that an EMS can be developed at a reasonable cost
and yield economic and environmental benefits. And the timing couldn't have been better. "In
the state's current budget crisis, the cost savings will allow us to better serve the public with our
current resources," explained Robert Burnley, DEQ Director. DEQ also wanted to complete the
EMS process to raise the agency's awareness about the importance of daily job-related activities and
how those activities can impact the environment.
10 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
An Environmental
Management
System—Making a
Difference in
Virginia
(continued)
DEQ developed its EMS over a six-month period, relying on the leadership of an EMS workgroup
made up of representatives from each of DEQ's regional offices as well as every major central office
division. The workgroup met twice a month and focused on a different element of the EMS at
each meeting. Between sessions, an EMS consultant assembled meeting materials to review,
finalize, and report on at the next meeting. DEQ estimates that it spent $60,000 (2,000 hours at
approximately $30/hour) on staff time to develop the EMS. In addition, DEQ used an EPA EMS
pilot project grant to cover the EMS consultant's $15,000 fee. The effort is anticipated to provide
long-term cost savings and environmental protection through the implementation of its EMS.
DEQ selected a 25 percent reduction in solid waste generation by June 30, 2006, as its primary
environmental objective. Among 50 additional areas to be addressed through the EMS, DEQ
committed to assess and identify actions to reduce energy consumption; reduce nonpoint source
runoff from DEQ facilities; promote green procurement for goods and services; and communicate
to both internal and external stakeholders about the status of the EMS.
Rain Garden to the Rescue!
According to Sharon Baxter, Director of the Office of
Pollution Prevention, DEQ staff members around the state
are actively working to implement the EMS. "Staff
sponsored activities are an excellent way of demonstrating
the power of individuals in promoting organizational change
to improve the environment," explained Baxter.
Ron Phillips, Planning and Permit Support Manager in
DEQ's Valley Regional Office in Harrisonburg, Virginia
recently led the installation of a rain garden to capture and
treat runoff from the office building roof, sidewalks, and
parking lot. "To determine potential impacts from storm
water runoff, the EMS requires each DEQ facility to assess
watershed sensitivity, measure impervious surface area,
and visually inspect storm water runoff," explained Phillips.
To minimize impacts from storm water runoff, the EMS also
directs the DEQ to consider the amount of impervious
surface area when it considers Requests for Proposals for
property leases. The Valley Office's facility has
approximately 69,000 square feet of impervious surface.
Phillips' team estimated that roughly one-third to one-half of
the runoff from these surfaces was absorbed by grassy
areas or by roadside ditches. The rest flowed through a
grassy ditch into a nearby stream, which happens to be on
Virginia's 303(d) list of impaired waters. Their initial visual
inspection of runoff in the ditch revealed the presence of
petroleum products and sediment, and they assumed that it
also contained measurable quantities of metals, nutrients,
and bacteria. They realized that the storm water impact of
their site could easily be reduced if they installed a rain
garden.
By relying on grant funds and donations of materials and
services, Phillips kept the cost of the 1,000 square foot rain
garden to a minimum. Except for staff time to plan and
plant the rain garden, DEQ incurred no other costs. "By
installing the rain garden in the days before Earth Day and
showcasing it on an Earth Day bus tour, we were able to
capitalize on the goodwill of local sponsors who were
interested in the publicity that our project offered. We had
generous donations of
soil amendments,
equipment, and labor
from a local excavating
company and mulch
and trees from two area
landscape companies.
Grants from the Virginia
Department of Forestry
and the Shenandoah
Valley Pure Water
Forum, a local non-
profit group, covered
the remaining plants
and materials that we
needed to complete
the rain garden. In all,
the donated items
totaled approximately
$3,000."
DEQ staff member spreads
mulch in the rain garden.
Phillips partnered with the local Virginia Department of
Forestry office to plan and design the rain garden. To keep
costs low they chose to place the rain garden along an
existing drainage ditch on the property, reshaping it to be
flatter and wider to slow water flow and encourage
infiltration. To prepare the site, the contractor excavated 6
inches of clay soil and replaced it with a mixture of sand,
topsoil, composted leaves, and mulch. The sand
encouraged infiltration, the topsoil provided the plants with
adequate nutrients, and the organic material helped trap
pollutants. Staff members from the Valley Regional Office
helped plant water-tolerant grasses, shrubs, and trees and
spread mulch. "In spite of record drought in Virginia, our
rain garden is holding up quite nicely. We have a few trees
and perennials to replace, but aside from pulling a few
weeds and adding a yearly layer of mulch, we don't
anticipate spending any more time on the project- except
maybe to show it off." To view pictures of the rain garden
installation, see www.deq.state.va.us/raingarden.
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
11
-------
An Environmental The EMS Makes a Difference
Management Although in place for only slightly more than a year, DEQ has made progress toward its EMS
-^ . goals. "We have instituted a fairly aggressive energy savings program in the offices and on the
Viminiri road," explained Gregori. "We have reduced the number of department vehicles with poor gas
(continued) mileage and replaced some with hybrid vehicles. We are also reducing paper use by increasing the
amount of electronic format reporting, increasing our recycling efforts in the offices, and encourag-
ing staff to double-side both printing and copying." DEQ is also focusing on protecting water
quantity and quality, said Gregori. "DEQ recently completed a model for water conservation in its
facilities that several other Virginia state agencies are now using." In addition, this past spring one
of the DEQ regional offices installed a rain garden to capture and treat runoff from its facility (see
box for more information).
"These and other changes have saved money and reduced our impact on natural resources,"
explained Gregori. DEQ staff members are still reviewing the data from the first year for the entire
agency and can't yet quantify the full impact of the EMS. However, limited data, such as that from
the Roanoke regional office, indicates that kilowatt hour usage was reduced by 7 percent for the
year May 2001-2002 when compared to the previous year. Gregori added, "We expect to be able
to use our data to show other organizations the many benefits of an EMS."
[For more information on the DEQ EMS, contact Harry E. Gregori, Jr., Virginia DEQ, P.O. Box 10009,
Richmond, VA 23240. Phone: (804) 698-4374; e-mail: hegregori@deq.state, va. us. For more informa-
tion about the DEQ Valley Regional Office rain garden, contact Ron Phillips, DEQ Valley Regional
Office, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801. Phone: (540) 574-7800; e-mail: rdphillips(s>deq.state.va.us.
For more information on the DEQ Environmental Policy Statement and EMS Manual, visit
www.deq.state.va.us/p2/ems.html. For more information on the ISO program, visit www.iso.ch]
Agricultural Notes
Local Cooperation Makes All the Difference in Minnesota
One Minnesota county's efforts to reduce the amount of nonpoint source pollution reaching its
local lakes has met with great success, thanks in part to the support of local officials. The officials
played a large role in convincing farmers to install filter strips and riparian buffers that slow runoff
from nearby fields, capture suspended sediment, and absorb nutrients. More than 12,000 acres
have been enrolled in various programs since Grant County started its buffer initiative in 1998.
Program managers attribute much of the success to the willingness of town board members, county
supervisors, and other local officials to actively participate in the initiative and promote it to others.
Why Implement the Buffer Initiative?
In the early 1990s the Grant County Soil and Water Conservation District (GSWCD) and other
local agencies worked together to collect water quality monitoring data and develop trophic state
indices for many of the local lakes (for more information about Trophic State Indices see www.
epa.gov/bioiwebl/aquatic/carlson.html). These indices showed that all of the lakes in the county
were either threatened or impaired. "We took this information to the local officials, many of
whom are also farmers in the watershed. At that time the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
was just starting up, and officials noted that installing buffers using CRP funding would be a good
way to address the water quality problems. Since the landowners themselves initiated the idea, we
decided it was worth pursuing," explains Joe Montonye with the GSWCD.
Cooperating to Develop a Successful Program
GSWCD staff worked closely with the county's Land Management Department to develop a
proposal and plan for implementing a buffer strip initiative. Local officials—Grant County
commissioners, members of the county planning commission, and the GSWCD board of supervi-
sors- signed off on the proposal in 1998 and began work immediately. Using a grant from the
Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources, the GSWCD funded a technician to analyze maps
1 2 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
What's Next?
Although the GSWCD has met its goal of
12,000 acres of riparian buffers and filter
strips, work still remains. When the GSWCD
developed the initial goal, they looked at the
buffer acreage that would be needed along
streams, rivers, and lakes to offer the greatest
water quality improvement. However, a
number of landowners living along sensitive
areas (e.g., intermittent streams, drainage
ditches) located slightly apart from the primary
waterbodies also qualified for and participated
in the buffer program. The GSWCD plans to
continue working with landowners to
implement buffers along all primary
waterways.
Local Cooperation
Makes All the
Difference in
Minnesota
(continued)
and identify potential buffer sites. The technician used a geographi-
cal information system (GIS) to identify where cropland areas
existed within 100 feet of each bank of a lake, river, or stream. By
assuming that a 100-foot buffer was needed between cropland and
each waterbody, the GSWCD and the county developed a goal of
installing 12,000 acres of new riparian buffers and filter strips.
To inform the landowners about the program, the GSWCD
developed a letter explaining the economic and environmental
benefits of riparian buffers. The GSWCD technician also prepared
an aerial photo for each landowner, indicating the areas on their
property best suited for buffers, to be included in each mailing.
"With past program promotions, we've had many landowners
calling or coming by to ask whether their property qualified. In this
case it seemed most efficient to let them know in advance that their
land did qualify," said Montonye. The GSWCD mailed this
information to the landowners, along with a letter from the town-
ship board of supervisors endorsing the initiative. The county commissioners sent a follow-up letter
to reaffirm the benefits of buffers and encourage participation.
Walking the Walk
The local officials did more than pay the program lip service. "The involvement and support of
the local officials was one of the keys to our success. They established buffers on their property
and encouraged their neighbors to do the same," says Montonye. "Getting them on board re-
quired more work at the beginning—we had to attend numerous meetings and explain the con-
cept—but it paid off in the long term." All five of the conservation district supervisors and four
county commissioners who owned agricultural land in the watershed installed buffers. Approxi-
mately 40 of the 48 township level officials owning agricultural land followed suit. Conservation
district supervisor Roger Schoephoerster established a 60-foot filter strip along a tributary of the
Pomme de Terre River that runs through a corner of his property, calling the initiative "a heck of a
good program and it works." The example set by the local officials showed many private land-
owners that the buffer program would prove beneficial.
Financial incentives for landowners also convinced many to participate, explains Montonye.
"Whenever you can get a premium price for environmentally sensitive land that sometimes isn't
very productive it probably makes economic sense." Federal and state cost-share programs,
including the Continuous CRP, Wetland Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program, and the Reinvest in Minnesota Reserve, provided varying amounts of money to land-
owners to take their land out of production and convert it to riparian forest or vegetated filter
strips.
The cooperation of all the local agencies played another key role in the program's success, says
Montonye. "All of our local agencies worked very well together to develop and implement the
program." GSWCD and county staff cooperated to develop the program, educate local officials,
and communicate program information to the public. Both the GSWCD and the county con-
tinue to serve as strong advocates for the program. Local Farm Service Agency and Natural
Resources Conservation Service personnel work with the farmers to identify an appropriate
compensation program and to install the buffers. Other than the initial challenge grant supporting
the GSWCD's technician, the agencies completed the buffer initiative using their normal operating
funds.
Is the Buffer Initiative Making a Difference?
Program managers are relying on a network of community volunteer water quality monitors
collecting Secchi disk data to assess whether the buffers make a difference. "Although it is too soon
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
13
-------
Local Cooperation after implementation for significant changes to appear in the data, the general feeling by the
Makes All the monitors is that the water quality is improving," says Montonye.
Difference in
Minnesota The program continues to gain new supporters. "Just recently a local official said to me 'I wasn't
(continued) really in favor of this program at the beginning, but I have to say that I now think it is the best
thing we've ever done.'" notes Montonye. This change in attitude is common, he adds, and has
given the program new momentum. "Peer pressure is an amazing thing. When everyone else is
speaking favorably about the program it is tough to be a dissenter." Grant County serves as a
model for us all—by working hard to educate and involve local officials and other prominent local
stakeholders, they achieved consensus on a frequently controversial issue.
[For more information on the Grant County Buffer Initiative, contact Joe Montonye, Grant County Soil
and Water Conservation District, 17 Central Ave N, Elbow Lake, MN 56531, Phone: (218) 685-5396;
e-mail: joe. montonye@mn.usda.gov.]
Louisiana Master Farmer Program Fights Agricultural NPS Pollution
With 340 Louisiana stream segments listed on the 303(d) impaired waters list and public concern
for agricultural runoff gaining momentum, the Louisiana Farm Bureau and the Louisiana State
University Ag Center decided to find a solution for agricultural nonpoint source pollution. The
Louisiana Master Farmer program pulls resources from various organizations and provides farmers
and the public with tools to better their environment. The statewide program offers farmers
solutions based on environmental stewardship education. Carrie Borel, Ag Center, describes the
program as a "voluntary approach to address agricultural nonpoint source or other water quality
challenges by educating, adopting, and implementing proven agricultural BMPs in each watershed
throughout the state. The strength in the program comes from the multi-agency participation as
well as from commodity organizations and the Farm Bureau."
Combined efforts from the Ag Center, Louisiana Farm Bureau, Louisiana Department of Agricul-
ture and Forestry, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, and USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) made the idea a
reality. Each of the state agencies contributes through funding or technical assistance, and the Ag
Center acts as program coordinator. Federal funds are also used to support the implementation,
and in FY 2003, EPA section 319 funds will assist in BMP implementation on the model farms.
The program also plans to use the USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) for implementation funding.
Farmers apply for the Master Farmer Program by submitting an application to the Ag Center.
Once enrolled, farmers take courses on farm production, management, and marketing compo-
nents. Each component consists of twelve course hours in addition to actual implementation on
their farm. Classes are offered in each of the 12 major Louisiana watersheds at community centers.
Farmers can expect the program to last for approximately 3 years when upon successful comple-
tion, they are certified as Master Farmers.
Participating farmers must complete three components to become certified Master Farmers. The
first phase consists of environmental and BMP education through classroom lectures and discus-
sion. The NRCS provides course materials on conservation plans, and local soil and water conser-
vation districts offer information on area BMP activities. The second phase consists of model farm
(farms of previously certified Master Farmers) visits, where enrolled farmers visit sites in their
watershed where BMPs have already been implemented. The third phase is the development and
implementation of site-specific comprehensive conservation plans including the implementation of
cost-effective BMPs on the participant's farms.
The Master Farmer program is a unique, statewide, and successful comprehensive watershed based
approach to controlling agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Currently, the program lists more
than 250 enrollees including cotton, sugar, and rice growers, and cattle ranchers. The farmers in
Louisiana are excited about the program and the opportunities it creates, and enrollment continues
14 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
Louisiana Master to grow. Other states, such as Mississippi, have shown interest in starting similar programs due to
Farmer Program the success of the initial push in Louisiana.
Fights Agricultural
NFS Pollution [For more information, contact Carrie Borel, Louisiana State UniversityAg Center, P.O. Box25WO,
(continued) Baton Rouge, LA 70894-5100. Phone: (225) 578-2906; e-mail: cborel@agctr.lsu.edu. For more
information about the Louisiana Master Farmer Program, see www.lsuagcenter.com/Subjects/
masterfarmer]
Technical Notes
High Tech Plants Become Gold Mine for Site Cleanups
All these contaminants can be
phytoremediated. Those with asterisks are
also current candidates for phytomining:
Call it a miracle of modern science. Call it alchemy. But more and more researchers are singing
the praises of a relatively new technique called phytomining. The research, at the crossroads of
geology, biology, and chemistry, uses plants to soak up, or hyperaccumulate, metals like zinc,
cadmium, nickel, and even gold from soils into the stems. Interest in the field has increased as test
plots and demonstration projects have shown that these plants not only help clean up soils, but can
also be harvested and burned to generate metal ore from the plant ash. This double benefit is
capturing the attention of many in science and business, bringing the technology to the cusp of
broad commercial application worldwide.
While phytoremediation is the general process of using plants to help clean up contaminated sites,
phytomining is the use of plants to extract economically viable products from a growth medium
such as soil, mine spoils, or even water. Applications of phytoremediation have been on the
upswing since the early 1980s, and recent breakthroughs and new creativity have led to new,
commercially profitable, ways of cleaning up sites, dubbed phytomining by the late pioneer
researcher Dr. Robert Brooks of New Zealand's Massey University. This article explores how both
phytoremediation and phytomining are being used to clean up contaminated sites and control
nonpoint source pollution.
In reality, there is a continuum between phytomining and phytoremediation. While both are
intended to help clean up the environment, the former is designed to be commercially profitable.
While phytoremediation is not meant to yield a financial profit, it is often the least expensive
choice for restoring a site. A 1995 study found that phytoremediation would save at least 75
percent of the cost of site cleanup over traditional excavation and storage techniques for certain
applications on metal-contaminated sites. In 1999,
phytoremediation was used to clean up lead from a contaminated site
owned by Daimler-Chrysler that resulted in a projected savings of
$1.1 million. It is typically integrated with other strategies, often
providing the finishing step in site cleanups. These plant technolo-
gies have many potential applications, including brownfields
remediations, Superfund restorations, cleanups of acid mine damage,
and environmental justice projects.
Metals, including cadmium, cobalt,
copper, gold*, mercury, lead*, nickel*,
palladium, platinum, thallium, and zinc
Toxic elements, including arsenic and
selenium
Cyanide
Atrazine and other pesticides
Munitions wastes
Petroleum products, including trichloro-
ethylene (TCE) and related compounds
Uranium and other radioactive com-
pounds
In the U.S., the USD As Agricultural Research Service has led this
green revolution, matching plants and soil conditions that can be
applied to a long list of toxic metals and radioactive compounds (see
sidebar). According to an EPA hazardous waste database,
phytoremediation has the potential to at least partially clean up
thousands of hazardous waste sites in the U.S. alone. Sites that are
candidates for phytoremediation often remain barren and erode
toxins to waterways because their soils are inhospitable to most
plants. Hyperaccumulator plants, however, thrive in such conditions.
They keep erosion in check and readily absorb metals or other
contaminants into their shoots, both of which prevent the toxins
from entering waterways. While hundreds of hyperaccumulator plant
species have been catalogued in recent years, the trick is to match up
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
15
-------
High Tech Plants
Become Gold Mine
for Site Cleanups
(continued)
the right plant with the identified contaminant and climate zone, while steering clear of invasive
and non-native species.
An analysis by the USDA's Agricultural Research Service shows that harvests of crops or wood
from pastures or forests grown on land with nickel-rich soils would fetch about $50 to $100 per
hectare per year. A phytomining crop growing on the same land would produce an annual yield of
400 kilograms of nickel per hectare, worth more than $2,000 even at today's depressed market
price for nickel. This yield could be increased to over $3,000 per hectare per year by selling the by-
product energy from burning the plants to create nickel ore ash.
Phytoremediation is being studied closely for its potential to remove cadmium from rice paddy
regions across Asia where test plot results indicate benefits to food safety and the environment.
Cadmium from many mine sites is contaminating rice paddies that are being farmed intensely by
some of Asia's poorest farmers. In these applications, phytoremediation may significantly further
the cause of environmental justice. Similarly, gold mine spoils in South Africa and Brazil, which
can contain dangerous amounts of cyanide and mercury used in extracting the gold, are prime
candidates for phytoremediation, and possibly even profitable phytomining.
In the fight to restore our environment, it is often the earth which offers up the best tools. In the
case of phytoremediation and phytomining, we are wisely beginning to follow its lead.
Soy Growers Leaving More Residue
An American Soybean Association (ASA)
study, released in November 2001, shows
that more than half of the farmers surveyed
credited the introduction of Roundup
Ready Soybeans as the factor having the
greatest influence on their willingness to
implement conservation tillage practices.
Chief among those conservation tillage
practices is the practice of no-till farming.
Using conventional farming methods,
farmland is plowed in the fall, disked before
planting, and
then cultivated
Study Details
For the study, ASA hired Doane Marketing
Research, Inc. to study farming practices of
452 farmers in 19 Midwestern and Southern
states with quotas established based on each
state's proportion of soybean acres.
Participants with 200 or more soybean acres
were randomly selected from lists maintained
by Doane, and 201 additional participants
were selected at random from an ASA
members list.
While the study showed that ASA members
were earlier adopters of conservation tillage
practices, the tillage practices in 2001 of non-
members were similar to that of ASA members
prior to 2001. ASA represents more than
26,000 soybean producers with affiliate offices
in 26 states and 13 international marketing
offices around the globe.
Soy Growers Leaving More Residue. The seeds for these
soybeans were drilled through a layer of vegetation and
the stalks of the previous year's corn crop.
once or twice
during the growing season to control weeds. While this method helps
control weeds, it also disrupts the soil and leaves the ground exposed
to wind and rain erosion, which carries soil and agricultural chemicals
into the air and into nearby streams and rivers.
Under a no-till farming system, where farmers eliminate all tillage,
soybean seeds for the next crop are planted through the organic
material left over from the previous crop (e.g., corn, cotton, wheat).
Roundup Ready Soybeans are genetically resistant to the application
of Roundup, an herbicide that inhibits weed growth. The combina-
tion of Roundup Ready Soybeans and Roundup allows farmers to
avoid mechanical weed removal.
The ASA released the findings of the first conservation tillage study in
November 2001. "ASA estimates that no-till and reduced-till farming
are now the preferred planting methods on more than 80 percent of
all soybean acres," said ASA Chairman Bart Ruth and Rising City,
Nebraska, farmer. Almost half (49 percent) of study participants
increased no-till soybean acres during the last six growing seasons
16
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
Soy Growers
Leaving More
Residue
(continued)
(1996-2001). During this period, no-till soybean acres increased to more than 49 percent of total
soybean acres, and reduced-till acres have increased to 33 percent of soybean acres.
In the ASA study, 53 percent of growers made fewer tillage passes in soybeans. Reduced tillage
practices in soybeans saved 247 million tons of irreplaceable topsoil and 234 million gallons of
equipment fuel across the country. "This technology reduces my production costs because I don't
have to drive my equipment over each field as many times," said Ruth. "That decreases my labor
costs and the wear-and-tear on my equipment. It also lowers my fuel cost and improves air quality.
And for the first time in modern history, we have the technology to implement sustainable agricul-
tural practices that are saving the soil for future generations."
Mention of commercial products or publications does not constitute endorsement, or recommendation
for use, by EPA.
[For more information, contact Bart Ruth, Chairman, American Soybean Association, 12125 Woodcrest
Executive Drive, Suite 100, Saint Louis, MO 63141. Phone: (402) 542-2181; e-mail: bdruth@alltel.net.
Also contact Bob Callanan, ASA Communication Director. Phone: (314) 576-1770; e-mail:
bcallanan@soy. org.]
New Book Traces Development of Tillage Systems
Increasing numbers of farmers are turning to no-till and
other methods of conservation tillage. In doing so, they are
adopting soil-saving techniques collectively called crop
residue management (CRM). Using CRM means that
farmers do not have to go repeatedly into fields to plow,
saving them time, fuel costs, machinery maintenance, and
labor. Most experts agree that improved water quality,
better water conservation, improved soil tilth (state of
aggregation of the soil), reduced soil erosion, and lower
input costs, are added benefits of CRM.
In the history of U.S. agriculture, CRM is a relatively new
concept that had its beginnings in the early 1930s. A
recently published book by Harold Owens, a retired USDA
agronomist and soil conservationist (and former agricultural
writer for NFS News-Notes) provides a historical context
that helps the reader understand how CRM works and what
it means today.
Owens' book, Tillage: From Plow to Chisel and No-tillage,
1930-1999, begins with a detailed look at the pioneers of
CRM, the innovative farmers and researchers who began
and developed these techniques. Beyond the human
interest story, Owens discusses how improved machinery
contributed to the methods underlying CRM. Owens says,
"The ingenuity of manufacturers and innovative farmers in
developing equipment to leave more residue on the
surface, and then to plant through it, has facilitated the
availability and use of CRM."
CRM gave crop residue, once an undesirable by-product, a
make-over. Owens points out that the development of
herbicides, which provided an alternative to tillage for
controlling weeds, greatly enhanced farmers' willingness to
leave residue on the soil surface. A change in attitude
accelerated the acceptance and adoption of crop residue
management as a way for farmers to optimize their net
returns and improve the environment and natural
resources.
Owen's book is available through the Midwest Plan Service
(MWPS) for $12 per copy. A CDROM version, for $25, is
also available with the full text of the Conservation Tillage
Systems and Management handbook and other
conservation tillage education materials. To place an order,
contact the MWPS, 122 Davidson Hall, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA 50011. Phone: (800) 562-3618; e-mail:
mwps@iastate.edu.
Best Management Practices Manual for Urban Sites
The Metropolitan Council of the St. Paul/Minneapolis area, in cooperation with several local cities
and watershed districts, has developed the Urban Small Sites Best Management Practices (BMP)
Manual to assist Twin Cities municipalities and wastewater management organizations in guiding
site development and redevelopment. The Council, the regional planning agency for the Twin
Cities' seven-county area, operates the regional transit system, collects and treats wastewater, and
assists in environmental, transportation, housing, and infrastructure planning.
The manual provides assistance to communities and water management organizations during
preparation of required surface water management plans. It also serves as a design reference for
developers, contractors, and others for use during project design and implementation. Karen
Jensen, Water Resource Planner for the Council, says, "The Council hopes that the manual will
foster environmental protection during dense infill and other efficient land development." The
Council developed the manual with a budget of $ 150,000. Preparation of the manual was con-
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
17
-------
Best Management tracted to Barr Engineering Company of Minneapolis at a cost of $139,600, and the remainder of
Practices Manual the funds was used to produce and send CD-ROM and hard copies of the manual to all cities,
for Urban Sites counties, and water management organizations within the seven-county area.
(continued)
The manual is designed for sites of less than 5 acres in cold climate environments and provides
factors in selecting BMPs, guidelines for pollution prevention and storm water runoff BMP design,
and 40 sample BMPs. Cold climate settings often create issues such as frozen pipes, reduced
growing seasons, reduced infiltration rate, and high volumes and pollutant loads of snowmelt.
Most of the 40 BMPs presented in the manual may be characterized as low-impact development,
promoting the protection or restoration of the natural hydrology of the site. The manual also
includes a storm water treatment BMP selection matrix to aid identification of site-appropriate
BMPs, an annotated bibliography, and a list of local examples of successful BMP implementation.
The Urban Small Sites Manual will assist small-site cold climate urban development and redevel-
opment projects by identifying practices to reduce storm water runoff quantity and improve runoff
quality. The manual provides information for small sites, taking into consideration hydrology,
pollutants, and the cold climate. In addition to an outline for BMP selection and information on
40 BMPs, the manual includes a regulatory analysis for watershed programs, local BMP installa-
tion examples and contacts, sources for model stormwater ordinances, and a source list of BMP
manuals and other references.
The Council distributes the CD-ROM and hard copies of the manual for sale through their data
center. The manual is a not-for-profit venture, and the price of the copies covers reproduction
costs only. The CD-ROM version of the manual may be purchased for $7.50, and the hard copy
format is available for $30.00. The manual is also available online at www.metrocouncil.org/
environment/Watershed/bmp/manual.htm.
[For more information, contact Karen Jensen, Metropolitan Council, 230 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN
55101. Phone: (651) 602-1401; e-mail: karen.jensen@metc. state, mn. us; Internet:
www. metrocouncil. org.]
Notes on Eduction
Storm Drain, Watershed Signage Choices Abound
At less than $2 per
aluminum marker,
these five-inch disks
are an attractive and
affordable choice for
Phoenix, Arizona.
"Don't dump" messages stenciled at storm drain inlets have helped the public make the connection
between what happens on the land and in our water since the 1980s. This watershed outreach
effort now has company. Today there are many public signage options available to watershed
managers, public works and transportation officials, and volunteer coordinators. From billboards
at watershed divides to customized manhole covers, the word about watershed awareness and
stream protection is getting out in new ways. The following is a roundup of some of the creative
methods used to raise awareness of nonpoint source pollution and watershed protection.
Storm Drain Markers
Since the mid-1990s colorful vinyl markers with "don't dump" messages have been affixed to storm
drain inlets in various watersheds across the country. Although the markers are typically no larger
than four to eight inches long, they are highly customizable and durable. Their cost-effectiveness
helped make them an attractive option for local governments, watershed organizations, and
volunteer groups. As an alternative to vinyl markers, some groups have used ceramic or metal
medallions to promote public awareness of the connection between storm drains and water
pollution. In Phoenix, Arizona, and Fort Worth, Texas, raised metal castings have been set into
walkways next to many storm drain inlets.
Manhole Covers and Inlet Grates
A few communities are capitalizing on an often overlooked piece of urban infrastructure, the lowly
manhole cover, to help raise awareness that urban runoff often ends up in local waters. A number
of different foundries have created customized castings with messages similar to those used on
18
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
Storm Drain,
Watershed Signage
Choices Abound
(continued)
storm drain stencils. Fish logos and city seals are often featured in these designs. Curb inlets have
also provided sufficient facing to incorporate "don't dump" messages with logos.
Billboards
Roadside billboards telling motorists they are entering a particular watershed are beginning to dot
the country's landscape. While budgets for billboard messages are beyond the reach of many
grassroots organizations, billboards are becoming more popular with larger local governments,
regional organizations, and states. Water supply utilities also employ billboards to reach the public
for their source water protection strategies. Along with the higher price tag, billboard messages
have a higher visibility. While the messages develop watershed awareness, or what marketers refer
to as branding, they are unlikely to lead to actions to reduce pollution unless they are used in
concert with a variety of complementary outreach tools.
Roadside Signs
Roadside signs denoting stream crossings have been standard for most state transportation authori-
ties for decades. Recently, local governments have joined to raise awareness of streams intersecting
local roads with larger and more colorful signs. In addition to bridge crossing signs, some local
governments and water utilities are placing watershed divide signs along many local roads to raise
watershed awareness. The idea of highlighting stream names is that it is easier for the public to
care for something if they know its name.
Bus and Subway Posters
To overcome "awareness gaps" among urban dwellers of their connections to the natural world,
posters with eye-catching graphics and hard-hitting messages on commuter buses and in subway
stations have been used. One such series of posters was developed by a water quality consortium in
the Puget Sound region and is being directly adopted in a growing number of metropolitan
regions. The posters, distributed by Washington State Department of Ecology, can be viewed and
ordered online at www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/posters. While the cost of ready-made posters is
negligible, renting ad space on buses and subway stations may require a significant expenditure
with campaigns typically lasting one month at a time.
This increased arsenal of public signage options for raising watershed awareness is arriving just in
time for communities subject to new Storm Water Phase II requirements. The permits, mandated
for thousands of small and medium sized localities across the country by March 2003, will require
well-developed public education and outreach programs as one of six compulsory program ele-
ments (See News-Notes Issue 69 at www.epa.gov/owow/info/NewsNotes.) "Don't dump" signage
at storm drain inlets may provide additional credit as a pollution prevention measure, another
element required under the Phase II permits.
Managing Car Washing
If the dog is man's best friend, the car must be a close second.
In fact, with more than 750 motor vehicles for every 1,000
Americans, they outnumber dogs by a factor of about three to
one. In the United States, the car has become a ubiquitous
symbol for independence and freedom, and we have given over
much of our national landscape to accommodate it. Among
the many impacts of motor vehicles on our environment, car
washing has been noted by many water quality experts as a
serious contributor of nonpoint source pollution. This activity
can send high loads of nutrients, heavy metals and toxic
hydrocarbons to receiving waters during dry weather condi-
tions, when receiving waters are least able to handle the
impacts (see box). What doesn't make it to the water dries
onto surfaces and washes into the water when the wet weather
returns.
Car Wash Education Campaigns
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
19
-------
Managing Car
Washing
(continued)
Car washing by Americans on private
property has traditionally been viewed as
unregulated and unregulatable. Individual
residential car washing is exempted from
existing Phase I Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems (MS 4) general permits and
soon-to-be adopted Phase II MS4 general
permits, provided they are not "significant
contributors of pollutants" to the MS 4
system. Whether or not car washing is a
significant contributor of pollutants in
particular circumstances, most MS4
communities do not relish the prospect of
banning an activity so ingrained in Ameri-
can culture. Instead, the focus of environ-
mentally progressive communities seems to
be on pollution prevention and good ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
housekeeping practices. Specifically, "Do It
Yourself" (DIY) car washers are being encouraged to:
• switch to using commercial car washes, which use less water and are required by law to not
send their discharges to surface waters or any conveyance systems leading to such waters;
• wash their cars where suds and rinse water cannot drain into streams or storm drains, such as
over pervious surfaces like lawns and gravel;
• where washing over impervious surfaces cannot be reasonably avoided (for instance, in many
townhouse and apartment communities), block off storm drains with a device to divert flow
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to the sanitary sewer, a safe recharge area, or an infiltration BMP;
Potential Pollution Sources
from Car Washing:
thermal impacts from dry weather surface
flows over blacktop pavements
heavy metals from rust, brake linings, etc.
oil and grease
detergents and surfactants (substances
that break down the surface tension
property of water)
nutrients from ammonia or phosphorus-
based detergents
petroleum hydrocarbons from tire cleaners,
etc.
The Question of
Community Car Washes
The practice of car wash fundraisers by
scouts, churches, schools and other
organizations is a time-honored tradition, but
one with an uncertain future in the wake of the
upcoming Phase II MS4 requirements. While
this activity is not explicitly exempted by
general permits which must be adopted by
thousands of localities by next March, many
communities will take a "wait and see" attitude
toward enforcement. Some local governments
are encouraging, or requiring, charitable
groups to register their fundraisers, block off
storm drains, and divert runoff to sanitary
sewers, designated pervious areas or
infiltration-type BMPs. Kitsap County,
Washington, has a particularly proactive
outreach campaign for educating charitable
car wash groups and a system for diverting
car wash runoff that it calls the Bubble Buster.
Used with a temporary storm drain plug, the
bubble buster is a patented device for
collecting the wash water and diverting it from
a storm drainage system (see
www.kitsapgov.com/sswm/carwash.htm). In
some communities, regulated commercial car
washes team up with nonprofit groups and
offer discount tickets for fundraising events.
• reduce the frequency of car washing and the amount of cleaning
products used per wash;
• use biodegradable low- and no-phosphate detergents and the least
toxic auxiliary cleaning products (many tire care products come
with "harmful or fatal if swallowed" warning labels); and
• use water hoses with automatic shut-off nozzles.
Changing the behaviors of chronic car washers (people who wash
their cars at least once a month) may not be easy, as many in this
category are blind to the connection between their actions and water
quality or are otherwise resistant to changing their routines. In this
regard, government leadership, neighborhood peer pressure, and
outreach efforts like storm drain marking campaigns can help (see
News-Notes #6 9).
In Prince Georges County, Maryland, 12 percent of DIY car washers
switched to using commercial car washes in the immediate wake of a
one-year pollution awareness campaign (from 29 percent to 41
percent) in a county-led effort in 1993. In Los Angeles, about 6
percent of chronic car washers washed their vehicles less frequently as
a result of a public outreach campaign by the city in 1997. And a
1997 survey in King County, Washington revealed that only half of
DIY car washers would switch to using a commercial car wash, even
if they were given discounts or free washes. Perhaps ironically, while
DIY car washers do not readily associate their actions as having an
impact on water quality, they are sensitive to water supply consider-
20
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
Managing Car ations, as evidenced by their overwhelming compliance with water conservation restrictions during
Washing times of drought.
(continued)
In possibly the most ambitious effort of its kind to date, a Canadian water quality advocacy group
called RiverSides Stewardship Alliance has begun to apply social marketing strategies to encourage
DIY car washers to switch to using commercial car washes. The initiative seeks public-private
partners to heavily promote the benefits of patronizing professional car washes via a high profile
"Take Me Out to the Car Wash" campaign, as well as to spread the word about the negative
consequences of DIY car washing. As the five-year campaign has recently started, its effectiveness
will not be known for a few more years. (See www.riversides.org/review/riversides/carwash.htm for
more information.)
Because of its symbolic association in American culture with pride and independence, car washing
poses a special challenge to those who care about its connection with degraded water quality.
Through sensitive and sensible approaches, and a strong dose of old-fashioned ingenuity, solutions
are beginning to emerge.
[For more information, contact Don Waye, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 4503T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 566-1170: e-mail:
waye. don@epa.gov.]
New Mexico State University Hosts Environmental Design Contest
In their quest to prevent catastrophic wildfires, the United States Forest Service (USFS) submitted
a challenge to the 2002 New Mexico State University (NMSU) Environmental Design Contest to
find commercially viable uses for small diameter trees (3" - 8"). Wildfires fueled by excess small
trees and brush destroy homes and habitat; threaten residents, firefighters, and wildlife; and leave
the land barren and subject to massive erosion for years to come. Erosion of the burned areas
contributes to overload of sediment to local waterways, clogging streambeds and degrading aquatic
habitat.
USFS policy encourages mechanical thinning of small tree and brush forests that supply ladder
fuel, the fodder that allows small fires near the ground to spread up and out. But mechanical
thinning is expensive, time-consuming, and wasteful. If commercial uses for thinning could be
developed, private companies might be interested in doing the thinning to manufacture their
product, thereby providing jobs for local residents and relieving the USFS of some of the burden.
During the contest, teams from five universities tackled the problem of finding structural uses for
small diameter logs. Three teams designed roof trusses, structures on which a building's roof is
laid, and two teams designed footbridges. Montana State University won first place and a $2500
prize for designing a footbridge strong enough to support an automobile.
Each year, private industry and government agencies sponsor the contest, submit tasks, and supply
judges. The tasks are all real world problems faced by sponsors. The sponsors gain fresh and
creative ideas from the students, and the students get real world experience in problem solving.
The design contest is not directly involved in marketing the ideas developed by the students
though some of the designs include a marketing plan. The school also sponsors a job fair on the
last day of the contest where many of the sponsors and attending companies can look for new
employees.
[For more information, contact Dr. Abbas Ghassemi, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30001,
MSC WERC, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001. E-mail: aghassem@werc.nel]
Alabama Builders Self-inspect Storm Water Controls
Builders in Alabama are now able to self-inspect storm water controls thanks to a public/private
partnership. In 1997, Alabama Department of Environmental Management (DEM) entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Homebuilders Association of Alabama (HBAA) to
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 21
-------
Alabama Builders
Self-inspect Storm
Water Controls
(continued)
enhance compliance rates with the Alabama Construction Storm Water General Permit and
increase efforts to implement pollution prevention measures through awareness training of builders
and developers who are on-site on a daily basis. Initially, permits required builders to hire a
Qualified Credentialed Professional (QCP) to conduct site inspections monthly or within 24 hours
of a 3/4-inch rain. QCPs, usually professional engineers recognized by DEM as having expertise in
storm water management, were high in demand and short in supply. If a QCP was not available or
didn't do his job correctly, builders were forced to self-inspect without expert knowledge, often
leaving them open to the threat of non-compliance fines and lawsuits. Even though ADEM also
conducted inspections periodically, builders were often left with the responsibility of fixing prob-
lems without any expert knowledge or assistance. ADEM and the Homebuilders Association
decided to take action.
The organizations developed an 8-hour training course, the Qualified Credentialed Inspection
Professional (QCIP) program, that teaches developers and builders their responsibilities as well as
the practical aspects of installing BMPs for erosion and sediment control, and most importantly,
provided them with a state QCIP accreditation. After completing the course, attendees take a
written exam with follow-up annual 4-hour refreshers. Initial development costs for the course
were approximately $50,000 which was paid for by the HBAA. Annual costs for the course are
recovered by student tuition ($395 for initial course, $100 for refresher).
More than 500 builders have been certified since 1999. QCIP graduates are then authorized to
conduct both monthly and post-precipitation inspections of their own sites. The program has
built community awareness of permit requirements and significantly increased compliance rates.
Don Spurlin, builder and owner of Spurlin and Company, vouches for the QCIP program's success
and benefits. Since his certification, he has been able to save money and protect water quality in
the subdivisions he builds. With self-inspection, he doesn't have to pay an engineer to inspect
BMPs monthly or after rain events. NPDES Phase II requirements won't be a challenge for QCIP
certified builders. Spurlin, for example, is already implementing BMPs that will be a part of the
requirements. Spurlin notes that the most important benefit of the QCIP program is the knowl-
edge builders gain that leads them to be proactive when protecting water quality.
By implementing BMPs at the beginning of construction, he prevents silt and sediment from
entering the streets and waterways. Spurlin notes, "Ten years ago, I had to continually spend
money and time on cleaning silt out of the streets. Now, I put BMPs in place on day one and am
absolutely able to protect water quality." Spurlin's preferred methods include silt fencing, hay
bales, and natural vegetation use.
This program prevents nonpoint source pollution by targeting educational resources to those that
can have the greatest impact—the regulated community. By developing a thorough understanding
of permit requirements and the fundamentals of BMP implementation and maintenance, the
regulated community's ability to reduce pollutant loading, while saving money, is significantly
enhanced. This program is truly a win-win situation.
[For more information, contact Steven O. Jenkins, Chief, Field Operations Division, ADEM, P.O. Box
301463, Montgomery, Alabama 36130. Phone: (334) 394-4382; e-mail: SOJ@adem.state.al.us.]
States' Erosion Control Methods Examined
Cost-Effective Erosion Control with Blankets and Mats, an
article published recently in Erosion Control magazine,
examines the variety of erosion control methods used by
the departments of transportation in three states with
varying terrains and climates—Pennsylvania, Colorado,
and Texas. As noted in the article, today's stricter erosion
control regulations (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Phase II permits, etc.) have forced
developers to become far more diligent in preventing
erosion on the construction site—notjust after
construction is completed, but also during the
construction phase itself. The article focuses on the
growing popularity of applying erosion control blankets
and turf reinforcement mats for temporary slope
protection or long-term channel reinforcement at road
and other construction sites. The article, published in
the May/June 2002 issue, is available online at
www.forester.net/ecm 0205 cost.html.
22
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
Reviews and Announcements
Sea Grant Book Promotes Healthy Watersheds
Healthy functional watersheds are essential to our lives. We all live in watersheds, and whether
we're washing our cars in driveways, grazing our cows along stream banks, or just enjoying a day
boating, we all risk adding to the stress placed on aquatic ecosystems. The National Coastal
Ecosystem Restoration Manual, written by experts and practitioners across the country, helps readers
understand and become better stewards of their watersheds. Its intended audience is broad:
farmers, members of watershed councils, landowners, homeowners, forestry managers, state and
federal agencies and organizations, nongovernmental natural resource organizations - everyone
who lives and works in a watershed.
Available for $30, the 464-page manual guides readers through the watershed restoration process.
In the first section, readers learn to hold effective meetings and hone their decisionmaking and
communication skills. The goal is to create well-functioning local groups that can undertake the
difficult task of collaborating long enough to restore damaged habitat. The second section focuses
on watershed ecosystems (uplands, wetlands, riparian areas, and estuaries), explaining how each
functions and recommending methods of assessment, enhancement, and evaluation. The final
section of the manual applies BMPs in many different settings, including agriculture, forestry,
cities, and marinas.
For more information on the manual, visit www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/tempfiles/
NOIadprint.pdf. To request copies, call (541) 737- 2716, or send an e-mail to
sea.grant.communications(3>orst.edu and reference publication ORESU-H-02-002.
Out of the Gutter in Washington, D. C,
The NRDC recently released Out of the Gutter, Reducing Polluted Runoff in the District of Colum-
bia, which recommends the use of Low Impact Development (LID). Every time it rains, Washing-
ton, D.C., like all major cities, is plagued by excessive storm water runoff, which has gravely
contaminated the city's three major waterways (the Potomac River, the Anacostia River, and Rock
Creek). To clean up the pollution, the city's Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) currently relies
on conventional storm water management practices, many of which are costly and outdated. In
this July 2002 report, NRDC recommended instead that WASA adopt the LID approach and use
green roofs, strategically placed beds of native plants, rain barrels, and other measures to soak up
rain and prevent it from washing directly into waterways. NRDC also encouraged the local
government and WASA to restructure the city's flat storm water fee, protect environmentally
sensitive lands, restore the urban forest, and encourage water conservation and water reuse tech-
niques.
Although the report was written for Washington D.C. specifically, it has applicability for many
municipalities and communities. The report is available online at www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/
gutter/gutterinx.asp. To order a hard copy, contact NRDC Publications Department, 40 West
20th Street, New York, NY 10011. Phone: (212) 727-4486.
EPA Publishes Guidance for Beach Grants
EPA recently released the National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants.
The document contains the nine performance criteria that an eligible coastal or Great Lakes state,
tribal, or local government must meet to receive a Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act (BEACH Act) Implementation Grant. BEACH Act grants help these agencies operate
beach water quality monitoring programs, including notifying the public where there are health
hazards. Though the guidance is intended primarily for state and tribal programs, the document
also provides useful guidance to help local agencies improve their beach programs. The grants
provided $2 million in 2001 and grew to $10 million in 2002.
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 23
-------
To view the guidance, visit: www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/grants, or request document
number EPA-823-B-02-004 from the Office of Water Resources Center at (202) 566-1729.
Multiple copies can also be ordered from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publi-
cations by calling (800) 490-9198 or via fax at (513) 489-8695.
EPA Releases Needs Report for TMDLs
In July 2002, EPA published The Twenty Needs Report: How Research Can Improve the Total Maxi-
mum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, a technical study intended to help focus research efforts in the
TMDL program. It summarizes TMDL-related science needs identified by state, tribal, and
federal programs, the National Research Council, the private sector, and others.
The report guides EPA researchers to further improve the scientific basis of processes and tech-
niques used to restore and protect impaired waters. Each of the needs outlined in the report
include problem descriptions and suggestions for research. The three main focus areas include
research involving EPA Headquarters and regions, TMDL development and implementation, and
the broader Clean Water Act impaired waters program, in which TMDLs play a central role. The
report cites the need for better access to expertise within the EPA regions and Headquarters, better
quality and increased number of completed TMDLs, and improved watershed and water quality
modeling.
This publication is available online at www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/techsupp.html. To order a hard
copy, contact the EPA National Service Center for Environmental Publications (reference EPA
841-B-02-002), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242. Phone: (800) 490-9198; e-mail:
ncepimal@one.net.
Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Policy Report Released
The Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension Service recently published the report "Nutrient
Management Policy: Pennsylvania Stakeholders' Views About Progress, Challenges, and Future
Directions." Written by Charles Abdalla, associate professor of agricultural economics, and Alyssa
Dodd, extension associate in agricultural environmental policy, the report describes the Pennsylva-
nia Nutrient Management Act's (NMA) legislative history and progress in implementation,
provides insight into nutrient management policy challenges, identifies key indicators or program
performance and success, offers broad conclusions about nutrient management policymaking in
Pennsylvania, and identifies future policy directions.
The report is based on analysis of information collected from 28 interviews with wide variety of
Pennsylvania stakeholder agencies and organizations. Abdalla said, "Our goal was to identify
perspectives about critical nutrient management issues and provide a report that would contribute
to more informed discussions and policy decisions." While not every possible stakeholder group
was included, the report's findings are believed to be comprehensive and balanced from a state-
wide perspective.
The report listed water quality protection as the ultimate goal but not the only goal of
Pennsylvania's NMA. Other goals included providing assurance that agricultural nutrients were
properly managed, creating practical and understandable regulations, protecting the environment
without putting farmers out of business, balancing nutrients with crop needs, and creating uniform
statewide nutrient management standards. Many interviewees believed that Pennsylvania's water
quality was better protected with the NMA, but that there was more to be done. Interviewees also
stressed the need for phosphorus control on farms in addition to nitrogen standards. Most
interviewees agreed that the NMA was successful with inclusiveness, leadership, education, and
funding serving as key factors. Most interviewees envisioned an ideal nutrient management
program to be comprehensive, accountable, and science-based. An ideal program would address all
farms causing water pollution and non-agricultural nutrients ensure implementation and compli-
24 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
Pennsylvania ance, and use scientific tools such as a watershed approach to address cumulative impacts and
Nutrient water pollution risks.
Management Policy
Report Released The report will help citizens and public decision-makers debate issues, options, and future policy
(continued) directions for nutrient management in the Commonwealth. "Audiences finding the report useful
include people involved in animal agriculture, such as farmers, agribusiness, and related businesses,
rural residents, public decision-makers and elected officials, and anyone interested in water quality
and the environment," noted Abdalla.
For more information, contact Dr. Charles Abdalla, Penn State University, Department of Agricul-
tural Economics and Rural Sociology, University Park, PA. Phone: (814) 865-2562; e-mail:
CAbdalla@psu.edu. To view the document online, visit agenvpolicy.aers.psu.edu.
Farm & Home Environmental Newsletter Published
The fall issue of the Farm & Home Environmental Management Programs Newsletter has been
posted on our website. Produced by the staff of the National Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst office,
the newsletter aims to inform interested readers about voluntary pollution prevention programs
around the nation and about new research and policy impacting the management of environmen-
tal risk on farms and in homes. Access the full newsletter by visiting: www.uwex.edu/farmasyst.
Editor's Note: An announcement for the Summer 2002 issue of the Volunteer Monitor incorrectly listed shipping costs for
individual issues in Nonpoint Source News-Notes #69 (September 2002). In fact, subscriptions are free, but there is a small
charge for back issues. Additionally, larger quantities are available for handing out at workshops and conferences. To
subscribe, order back issues, or for any questions, send an e-mail to skvigil@yahoo.com or visit www.epa.gov/owow/
volunteer/vm index.html.
Web Sites Worth a Bookmark
Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project: www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/scwrp
Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project (WRP) is a partnership of public agencies working
cooperatively to acquire, restore, and enhance coastal wetlands and watersheds between California's
Point Conception and the international border with Mexico. The site features maps and photos
depicting 29 different wetlands and offers information about the partnership's ongoing projects,
wetland resources, and wetland-related documents. The site includes a link to the WRP Informa-
tion Station, a watershed-based interactive data and mapping system.
American Rivers: www.amrivers.org
American Rivers is a national nonprofit river conservation organization dedicated to protecting
and restoring healthy natural rivers. Their site offers updated watershed-related news, publications
and other resource tools for watershed groups, and an index of river-related conservation groups
across the country.
Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research: tiaer.tarieton.edu
The Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research (TIAER), housed at Tarleton State
University, recently announced the launch of their new web site. The Institute addresses emerging
environmental issues, particularly those related to land management. The TIAER site offers
information about the organization, a news page, and a searchable research library of TIAER's
agricultural production and nonpoint source pollution reports and articles published since 1992.
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 25
-------
North Dakota NPS Site: www. health.state, nd.us/ndhd/environ/wq/nps
The North Dakota Department of Health recently unveiled its nonpoint source pollution web site.
The program focuses on the restoration and maintenance of the beneficial uses of the State's water
resources (i.e., streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, aquifers) impaired by NFS pollution.
The site provides grant guidance, project information, TMDL links, educator links, and more.
Datebook
DATEBOOK is prepared with the cooperation of our readers. If you would like a meeting or event
placed in the DATEBOOK, contact the NPS News-Notes editors. Notices should be in our hands at
least two months in advance to ensure timely publication.
Meetings and Events
January 2003
19-22
27-30
28-31
30-31
February 2003
17-20
20-21
24-28
March 2003
10-14
17-20
28
31-April 4
American Water Works Association Source Water Protection Symposium, Albuquerque, NM. For more information,
contact Linda Moody at (303) 347-6201 or lmoody@awwa.org.
National CRTS User Group Meeting, Denver, CO. Contact Don Kunkoski at (301) 694-7329 for more
information.
Emerging Technologies, Tools, and Techniques to Manage Our Coasts in the 21st Century, Cocoa Beach, FL. For more
information, contact Noemi Mercado at (202) 566-1251; e-mail: mercado.noemi@epa.gov.
3d National Conference on Science, Policy and the Environment, Education for a Sustainable and Secure Future,
Washington DC. For additional information and to register online, visit www.NCSEonline.org. Phone: (202)
207-0007; e-mail: conference@NCSEonline.org.
Urban Storm Water: Enhancing Programs at the Local Level, Chicago, IL. For more information, contact Bob
Kirschner, Conference Coordinator, Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook Road, Glencoe, IL 60022;
email: bkirschn@chicagobotanic.org.
International Conference on Stormwater and Urban Water Systems Modeling, Toronto, Canada. For more
information, contact Lyn James, Computational Hydraulics International. Phone: (519) 767-0197; e-mail:
info@chi.on.ca.
International Erosion Control Association: 34th Annual Conference & Expo: A Gathering of Global Solutions, Las
Vegas, NV. Contact IECA, P.O. Box 774904, Steamboat Springs, CO 80477. Phone: (970) 879-3010; Internet:
www.ieca.org.
Applied Fluvial Geomorphology Course, Charlottesville, VA. For more information, contact Canaan Valley
Institute at (800) 922-3601.
National Estuary Program Meeting, Washington, DC. Contact Marilyn Katz, EPA, at (202)
566-1246 for more information.
Abstract Submittal Deadline, TMDL 2003, Chicago, IL. For more information, visit www.wef.org/pdffiles/
TMDL2003Call.pdf or send an e-mail to tmdl03@wef.org.
National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, Coeur d'Alene, ID. Contact Laura Gabanski, EPA, at (202)
566-1179 for more information.
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES (EPA 841 -N-02-001) is published quarterly by the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to provide information on policy, technical,
and educational trends dealing with the condition of the water-related environment, the control of nonpoint sources of water
pollution, and the ecosystem-driven management and restoration of watersheds. It is distributed free of cost. Views expressed
do not necessarily reflect those of EPA. Mention of commercial products or publications does not constitute endorsement, or
recommendation for use, by EPA.
Editorial contributions from our readers sharing knowledge, experiences and/or opinions are invited and welcomed. (Use the
COUPON on page 27.) However, NEWS-NOTES cannot assume any responsibility for publication or nonpublication of unsolicited
material nor for statements and opinions expressed by contributors. All material in NEWS-NOTES has been prepared by the staff
unless otherwise attributed. For inquiries on editorial matters, call (703) 385-6007 or FAX (202) 566-1333.
26
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70
-------
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon #7O
(Mall or Fax this coupon to us)
Our Mai/ing Address: A/PS News-Notes, c/o Tetra Tech (EPA Contractor), 10306Eaton Place, Suite 340,
Fairfax, VA 22030
Our Fax Numbers: A/PS News-Notes (2O2) 566-1333 and (7O3) 385-6OO7.
Use this Coupon to
(check one or more) O Share Your Clean Water Experiences
O Ask for Information
O Make a Suggestion
Write your story, ask your question, or make your suggestions here:
Attach additional pages if necessary.
Your Name: Date:
Organization:
Address:
City/State: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
E-mail: Web site:
JANUARY 2003, ISSUE #70 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 27
-------
xvEPA
United States
Evnvironmental Protection Agency
(4503T)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
First Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
G-35
------- |