Nonpoint Source
^News-Notes
^ March 2015, #97
The Condition of the Water-Related Environment
The Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
The Ecological Management & Restoration of Watersheds
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Notes on the National Scene
2014 Farm Act Continues Commitment to Conservation
The Agricultural Act of 2014, also known as the 2014 Farm Act or Farm Bill, was signed into
law on February 7, 2014. The 2014 law continues a strong overall commitment to conservation.
However, unlike the previous two Farm Acts passed by Congress in 2002 and 2008, the 2014
Farm Act does not include an increase in overall funding for conservation programs. Between 2014
and 2018, the Congressional Budget Office estimates
mandatory conservation spending of $28 billion
under the 2014 Farm Act, or about $200 million less
than what would have been projected if the programs
and provisions of the 2008 Farm Act had been
extended.
The 2014 Farm Act links conservation compliance
(or crop insurance premium assistance and compli-
ance) with wetlands and highly erodible lands conser-
vation provisions. Under this new Farm Bill, a farmer
Have aliens descended on Baltimore Harbor? See
page 10.
Inside this Issue
Notes on the National Scene 1
2014 Farm Act Continues Commitment to Conservation 1
Guide Highlights 10 Planning Steps Needed for Transforming Neighborhoods
With Green Infrastructure 4
Many Sampled Streams Exceed Aquatic Life Benchmarks for Pesticides 7
Methylmercury Found in 25 Percent of U.S. Waters Tested 8
Notes from the States, Tribes and Localities.. 10
River Litter is No Match for Baltimore's Inner Harbor Water Wheel 10
Watershed Approach is Key to Restoring Estuarine Waters in
Southern Louisiana 12
Notes on Education 14
BUBBA Highlights Innovative Stormwater Management 14
Canoemobile: Connecting Urban Youth with Local Rivers 17
Reviews and Announcements 19
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution 19
Federal Agencies Sharing Data to Better Quantify Conservation Benefits 19
Data Resources 19
EPA Releases Updated Rainfall Erosivity Factor Calculator 19
Grasslands Tool Available Online 19
New Search Engine Enhances Access to USDA Research 20
North America WaterWatch Website Launched 20
Roadway Water Management Webcasts Available 20
Stormwater 20
EPA Releases New Low Impact Development Barrier Busters Fact Sheet 20
Green Infrastructure Collaborative Formed 20
New Getting to Green Financing Options Guide Available 20
United Nations Environment Program Releases Green Infrastructure Guide .... 21
Watershed Management 21
Great Lakes Restoration Action Plan Updated 21
Report Highlights Need for Nutrient Monitoring in the Mississippi
Watershed 21
U.S. Rivers are Becoming Less Acidic 21
Wetiands 22
Mississippi Wetlands Reduce Pesticides 22
Other 22
Environmental Services Center Releases Water Resource Articles 22
Glyphosate is Widespread in U.S. Waters 22
New Agreement Will Reduce Copper in Motor Vehicle Brake Pads 23
Rainwater Harvesting Academic Literature Review Available 23
Report Highlights Land and Water Conservation Fund Project
Success Stories 23
USGS Modeling Effort Improves Understanding of Dissolved Solids in U.S.
Rivers 23
West Virginia Releases Acid Mine Drainage Watershed Manual 23
Recent and Relevant Periodical Articles 24
Websites Worth a Bookmark 24
Calendar.. 25
Note: Issue #92 (October 2012) was the final printed issue of Nonpoint Source News-Notes. Beginning with Issue #93, all issues will be available
on EPA's Nonpoint Source News-Notes website for viewing and download. If you have not already done so, please subscribe to the News-Notes
notification service (instructions available at www.epa.gov/newsnotes) and we will notify you by email when each new issue becomes available.
-------
2014 Farm
Act Continues
Commitment to
Conservation
(continued)
or producer can become ineligible for the crop insurance program if he or she fails to comply with
conservation compliance provisions. The 2014 Farm Act also creates a new Sodsaver provision
designed to help protect existing native grasslands in six Northern Plains states: Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska. A producer choosing to convert any of
the remaining native grasslands in these six states to cropland will receive reduced crop insurance
subsidies (50 percentage points less than the premium subsidy that would otherwise apply) and be
subject to other limitations on crop insurance during the first four years of crop production.
New Law Consolidates Conservation Programs
The 2014 Farm Act reduces the number of conservation programs from 23 to 13. Many smaller,
more specialized programs were combined to form new programs, folded into existing programs,
or simply repealed. After program consolidations, 97 percent of conservation funding mandated in
the 2014 Farm Act will go to the five largest programs: the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP),
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, and the new Regional Conservation Partnership
Program (see box on next page). Within these five programs, the 2014 Farm Act continues the
trend of recent Farm Acts toward increasing the share of conservation funding devoted to work-
ing land programs (programs that support conservation on land in agricultural production), while
reducing the share of funding for land retirement. This means that funding for conservation ease-
ments, particularly wetland easements, will decline significantly—a departure from recent trends.
Funding Continues To Shift Toward Working Land
The 2014 Act continues a decade-long trend toward increased funding for conservation on work-
ing agricultural land, albeit at the expense of funding for conservation easements. EQIP and CSP
support the adoption of conservation practices or activities on land used for crop production and
grazing. CSP specifically provides payments that reward farmers who have already demonstrated
stewardship by using conservation practices on their farms. Combined funding for these two
programs is projected to account for more than half
of mandatory spending on major conservation pro-
grams during 2014—2018. These two programs and
their predecessors accounted for just over 40 percent
of spending during 2008—2013 and 32 percent during
2003-2007.
Conservation Program Changes: Highlights
New and Consolidated Nationwide Programs:
® Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. Retains
most of the easement program provisions in the Wetlands
Reserve Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program and
the Farmland Protection Program (although funding is
significantly reduced).
• Regional Conservation Partnership Program. Incorporates
provisions of the Agricultural Water Enhancement
Program. Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program and the Great
Lakes Basin Program.
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Incorporates
provisions of the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
• Conservation Stewardship Program. Continues financial
assistance to producers who meet stewardship
requirements, but now requires producers to meet tine
stewardship threshold for two resource concerns (e.g..
soil quality, water quality, air quality) instead of only one.
• Conservation Reserve Program. Incorporates grazing
contracts from the Grasslands Reserve Program.
Repealed Programs (Provisions Dropped from 2014 Farm Bill):
• Comprehensive Conservation Enhancement Program
• Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program
® Environmental Easement Program
Working land programs can fund a wide range of
practices to address unique resource concerns including
conservation tillage, nutrient management, field-edge
buffers and many more. In EQIP, 60 percent of funds
are reserved for livestock-related practices including
manure handling systems, fencing livestock out of
streams, and rotational grazing, to name a few. Under
the 2014 Farm Act, at least 5 percent of EQIP funds
are also reserved for wildlife habitat-related practices to
incorporate functions of the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program, which was repealed by the 2014 Act.
The trend toward greater funding for working land
programs recognizes that land retirement is not the
ultimate solution for agricultural environmental
problems because of economic, social and ecological
constraints. Land retirement programs, even at peak
acreage, included roughly 10 percent of U.S. cropland.
Soil erosion, nutrient and pesticide runoff, air pollut-
ant emissions, habitat degradation and other resource
concerns require a broader approach, involving a larger
2 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
-------
Regional Conservation Partnership Program Enhances Cooperation
The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), established by the 2014 Farm Bill, promotes coordination
between the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and conservation
partners as they deliver conservation assistance to producers and landowners. RCPP combines the authorities of
four former conservation programs: the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Program, the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative and the Great Lakes Basin Program.
Conservation partners can include states, farm organizations, conservation districts, municipalities, tribes, irrigation
districts and universities. Groups propose conservation objectives, the geographic area to be covered, and
practices to be supported, as well as provide a significant portion of overall funding Projects are selected by the
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture from proposals offered by potential partner groups, with high priority given to proposals
that include multistate areas; help producers avoid regulation; include a high proportion of producers in the
covered area; significantly leverage nonfederal financial and technical resources; address regional, state or national
conservation priorities; and use innovative conservation methods. Successful projects include plans for tracking the
success of practices and evaluating outcomes through monitoring or modeling.
Funding for RCPP Is allocated to projects in three different categories:
• National: Nationwide and multistate projects will receive 40 percent of RCPP funding.
• State; Projects occurring in a single state will receive 25 percent of RCPP funding.
• Critical Conservation Areas: Projects occurring within eight geographic areas (see map) chosen by the
Secretary of Agriculture will receive 35 percent of RCPP funding.
As part of the RCPP, the Secretary of Agriculture has designated Critical Conservation Areas (CCAs)
that represent an opportunity for many stakeholders to come together at a regional level to address
common natural resource goals while maintaining or improving agricultural productivity. Each CCA
has an overarching goal that includes addressing priority resource concerns that are common
throughout the area.
Conservation partners submitted nearly 600 pre-proposals in 2014. After reviewing the pre-proposals, NRCS invited
the top candidates to submit a full proposal. Partners submitted 210 full proposals requesting $1.4 b lion—four
times the available 2014 funding, in January 2015, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture announced the final selection of
115 projects, representing all 50 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The projects will receive more than
$370 million in federal funding, and are leveraging an additional estimated $400 million in partner contributions to
improve the nation's water quality, support wildlife habitat and enhance the environment. More information on the
selected projects is available on the NRCS' RCPP website.
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 3
Critical Conservation Areas
Legend
__ Chesapeake Bay
^¦Watershed
Mississippi River
'—I Basin
H Great Lakes Region
^California Bay Delta
Prairie Grasslands
E3 Region
Colorado River Basin
iZU Columbia River Basin
EJ Longleal Pine Range
— State boundaries
Data Source:
U S Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Map Source.
U S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Soil Science and Resource Assessment
Resource Assessment Division,
Beltsville, MD May 2014
Scale
0 50 100 200 300^
Albers Equal Area Projection
USDA Uni,ed States
Department of
Agriculture
-------
share of agricultural land. Policy makers recognize that conservation practices on working land
could often address these issues at a lower cost when compared to land retirement.
The 2014 Farm Act combines the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) with the Farmland Protection
Program and Grassland Reserve Program to create the Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program. The WRP previously supported wetland restoration. The Farmland Protection
Program had provided funding to state programs
that purchased permanent easements against the
development of farmland (often called purchase of
development rights programs). Finally, the Grassland
Reserve Program had offered a range of contracts
and easements designed to improve grassland and
protect it against conversion to other uses. Under the
2008 Farm Act (2008—2012), these three programs
received annual funding, on average, of more than
$710 million (in 2012 dollars), but the consolidated
program is slated to receive only $375 million
per year under the 2014 Farm Act (in 2012 dol-
lars, assuming 2 percent inflation for 2014—2018).
WRP was the largest of the three programs, with
an average annual funding of just over $500 mil-
lion for 2008—2013. Even in the unlikely event that
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program funds
are spent entirely on wetland easements, the new
Farm Act significantly reduces overall funding for
wetland protection.
The Regional Conservation Partnership Program,
another new program in the 2014 Farm Act, is
designed to leverage conservation funding from partners while focusing conservation efforts
on local, state or regional resource conservation or environmental problems. The new program
replaces four repealed programs designed to address multistate regional problems. For 2014—2018,
the Regional Conservation Partnership Program will receive $100 million per year, plus another
7 percent of the funding budgeted for the EQIP, CSP, Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program and Healthy Forest Reserve Program (these funds will be directed through Regional
Conservation Partnership Program partnerships; for more details, see box on previous page).
For more information see Your Guide to the New Farm Bill Conservation Programs or the USDA
NRCS' 2014 Farm Bill website.
[Article adaptedfrom: 2014 Farm Act Continues Most Previous Trends In Conservation, by Roger
Claassen, featured in the May 2014 issue of Amber Waves, the USDA Economic Research Service's
monthly magazine.]
Guide Highlights 10 Planning Steps Needed for Transforming Neighborhoods With
Green Infrastructure
In October 2014 the U.S. EPA's Office of Sustainable Communities released a report, Enhancing
Sustainable Communities With Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Help Communities Better Manage
Stormwater while Achieving Other Environmental, Public Health, Social and Economic Benefits.
The report aims to help local governments, water utilities, nonprofit organizations, neighbor-
hood groups and other stakeholders integrate green infrastructure strategies into plans that can
transform their communities. EPA developed the resource in response to concerns that green
infrastructure implementation is often limited by technical, regulatory, financial and institutional
obstacles. This report serves as a guide to develop a plan that can overcome these obstacles for
4 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
2014 Farm
Act Continues
Commitment to
Conservation
(continued)
Spending on Conservation Easements to decline under the 2014 Farm Act1
$ million (2012)
800
600-
500 -
¦ Farmland Protection Program
¦ Wetlands Reserve Program
¦ Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
400 -
300 -
¦
m
200 ¦
100 -
n
Actual Actual Actual Projected
1996-2002 2003-2007 2008-2013 2014-2018
'In constant $ (2012), assuming 2 percent inflation for 2014-2018
'Includes only easement portion (60 percent of GRP prog-am funding).
Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Office of Budget and Policy Analysis
data on actual expenditures for 1996-2013; projections for 2014-2018 based on spending
levels provided in the 2014 Farm Act.
-------
Guide Highlights
10 Planning
Steps Needed
for Transforming
Neighborhoods
With Green
Infrastructure
(continued)
neighborhoods, towns, cities and regions of all sizes. It also can help stakeholders create a vision for
how green infrastructure can enhance their communities beyond reducing stormwater runoff and
directs readers to other resources containing more detailed information tailored to communities'
particular climate, goals and circumstances.
Developing a Sustainable Communities and Green Infrastructure Plan
To most effectively attain the benefits of green infrastructure, stakeholders should collaborate to
develop a good plan of action that can transform a community vision into reality. Specific compo-
nents of the plan will vary from place to place, but plan developers should consider the following
10 key steps that can help the plan succeed. The report examines each of
the following steps in detail, and supplements each with examples of
communities that have applied these steps in their own planning
processes.
1. Organize stakeholders.
The strategies that support sustainable communities and
green infrastructure are diverse and are linked to many
aspects of a community, providing many different poten-
tial sources of stakeholders. Ongoing involvement of
stakeholders throughout the community is important to
maintain enthusiasm and support for development and
implementation of the plan. Communities should identify
a lead stakeholder—an individual, organization or entity
to take the lead in developing a sustainable communities
and green infrastructure plan. In addition, participation
and support from local government is crucial. Local govern-
ments manage streets, parking lots, publicly owned open
spaces and other places that can often accommodate green
infrastructure. Local governments can also ensure that policies
and programs are consistent with the community's vision, and the
city's demonstrated leadership and commitment to the plan objec-
tives help keep stakeholders engaged.
2. Develop a community vision.
Green infrastructure is an important component of many types of local plans at the neighbor-
hood, city and regional levels, including those for water resource management, hazard mitigation,
climate adaptation and resilience, sustainability, environmental justice and economic development.
However, many communities are also developing stand-alone green infrastructure plans that
complement other efforts. Whether green infrastructure is one aspect of a broader plan or is the
central purpose of a plan, and whether the plan focuses on a neighborhood or an entire region,
the first step in a planning effort is typically developing a vision for what the community will look
like once the plan is fully implemented. The vision brings people together to determine a common
view of the future and guides the plan and its implementation.
3. Establish goals.
In many communities, the initial impetus for developing a sustainable communities and green
infrastructure plan might be to manage stormwater and improve water quality, and the plan's goals
would naturally include improvement in watershed health indicators. For example, the primary
goal might be to assist in eliminating combined sewer overflows or to have water clean enough to
allow fishing or swimming in the community's rivers, lakes and coastal waters. However, regardless
of the initial reason for developing a plan, one of the main advantages of green infrastructure is
that implementation can achieve a diverse array of community goals, such as improving the local
economy, revitalizing struggling neighborhoods and commercial corridors, improving quality of
life for residents and reducing flooding.
9. Identify
federal
government
2. Develop a
community
Develop
Sustainable
Community
Green
Infrastructure
3. Establish
goals
7. Plan for
long-term
operations and
maintenance
assets and
opportunities
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 5
-------
Guide Highlights
10 Planning
Steps Needed
for Transforming
Neighborhoods
With Green
Infrastructure
(continued)
4. Assess assets and opportunities.
Planning for sustainable communities and green infrastructure involves assessing the community's
existing conditions and opportunities for green infrastructure implementation. The type of data
collected will vary depending on the community's goals, but often includes elements such as the
amount of impervious surface; the number and surface area of roads, parking lots and buildings
that could incorporate green infrastructure; land ownership and use, including vacant and con-
taminated properties; existing green space and trails; watershed boundaries; condition of water
bodies; and rainfall amounts and patterns, soil type, topography, depth to ground water, and other
factors that affect green infrastructure design and functionality This information can help com-
munities select the most appropriate sites for green infrastructure and design the most effective
green infrastructure solutions for particular sites.
5. Identify approaches to adding green infrastructure.
Stakeholders need to identify a variety of approaches and opportunities to incorporate green
infrastructure into their community—on both public and private land, using both incentives
and requirements. These approaches might include: (1) using existing public land, (2) acquiring
additional public land, (3) providing incentives for implementing green
infrastructure on private land, and (4) requiring green infrastructure
on private land.
6. Factor brownfields and hazardous waste sites into planning.
Past industrial and commercial activity has left a legacy of soil and
water pollution at sites across the country. Thousands of potentially
contaminated properties, or brownfields, are located in densely popu-
lated neighborhoods, often near places where residents gather and
children play. When cleaned up, brownfields and hazardous waste sites
can become attractive locations for green infrastructure, which can help
convert a neighborhood liability into a community asset.
A rain garden collects and treats parking lot runoff
in this commercial shopping center in southern
Maryland.
7. Plan for long-term operations and maintenance.
All stormwater infrastructure requires maintenance, including struc-
tural repairs and replacement and removal of trash, sediment and
debris. Gray and green infrastructure both require establishment
of clear responsibilities for maintenance, a funding mechanism and an inspection system. Best
practices for both types of infrastructure also include having established maintenance and inspec-
tion schedules with a system in place for tracking activities, standard maintenance protocols, an
operations and maintenance training program, and a database indicating where the infrastructure
is located.
8. Develop strategies for funding.
To fulfill its sustainable communities and green infrastructure vision, a community needs to have
a way to pay for implementing the plan. A plan based on a communitywide vision can generate
enthusiasm from funders and reduce opposition to new fees or taxes. Federal and state funding
programs help kick-start a local effort but are generally not sufficient to cover all costs for plan
implementation. Communities usually need to rely on locally generated money as a long-term
funding source. Most successful models for locally funded implementation of a large-scale green
infrastructure plan establish a dedicated revenue source for capital projects, operations and mainte-
nance. Often this source can be a stormwater utility. Property owners pay the utility through a fee
on their water bill for the cost of managing stormwater flowing from the property.
9. Identify federal government resources.
The federal government has numerous funding and technical assistance programs that could help
communities implement a sustainable communities and green infrastructure plan.
10. Monitor and measure progress.
Plan developers should include a process to measure how well sustainable communities and green
infrastructure approaches help the community achieve its environmental, social and economic
6 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
-------
Guide Highlights
10 Planning
Steps Needed
for Transforming
Neighborhoods
With Green
Infrastructure
(continued)
goals. Performance metrics can be used to communicate with stakeholders about implementation
progress, demonstrate ongoing commitment to the community vision, encourage accountability,
and suggest course corrections that can help ensure continued progress toward goals. Involving
stakeholders in choosing performance metrics and setting up the monitoring process can help
ensure that residents and property owners, particularly those in disadvantaged communities,
understand and support the goals.
Other Resources
To highlight the report's release, in October 2014, Joel Beauvais, the Associate Administrator
for EPA's Office of Policy, wrote a blog post highlighting how green infrastructure is helping to
transform neighborhoods in Cleveland, Ohio, and across the nation. For more information about
the report, along with other resources for your community, visit EPA's Smart Growth website.
Many Sampled Streams Exceed Aquatic Life Benchmarks for Pesticides
Although pesticide levels seldom exceeded human health benchmarks, pesticides continue to be a
concern for aquatic life in many U.S. rivers and streams in agricultural and urban areas, according
to a new U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study published last September. The 2014 study analyzed
data collected over two decades (1992—2011). More than a half billion pounds of pesti-
cides are used annually in the U.S. to increase crop production and reduce insect-borne
disease.
USGS collected water samples nationwide from 182 streams and rivers during 1992—
2001 and from 125 streams and rivers during 2002—2011. USGS collected the samples
throughout the year, including during both high-flow and low-flow conditions.
Sampling was most intensive during the time of highest pesticide use and runoff—
generally weekly or twice monthly for a 4- to 9-month period.
The level of pesticides in water is largely influenced by the surrounding land uses.
Water analyses showed that the proportion of streams with one or more pesticides
exceeding an aquatic life benchmark was similar between the two decades for streams
and rivers draining agricultural and mixed-land use areas, but much greater during the
2002—2011 period for streams draining urban areas. Exceedances in urban streams
increased from 53 percent during the first decade of monitoring to 90 percent during
the second decade, largely as a result of the greater presence of fipronil and dichlorvos.
ftsf
A crayfish captured in a Virginia river.
1992-2001
2002-2011
1992-2001
2002-2011
1992-2001
2002-2011
Most Prevalent Pesticides
The specific pesticides most frequently detected in water included herbicides used heavily in
agriculture, herbicides with major nonagricultural uses, and several insecticides. Three herbicides
mainly used for agricultural purposes—atrazine, metolachlor and acetochlor—were among the
most frequently detected in agricultural streams and were
more frequently detected in agricultural streams than in
urban streams. In contrast, three herbicides commonly
used in urban areas—simazine, prometon and tebuthi-
uron—were detected more often in urban streams than in
agricultural streams. Finally, insecticides were found much
more frequently in urban streams than in most agricultural
streams. Diazinon, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl and fipronil were
most frequently detected in urban streams. Overall, results
for each individual pesticide reveal a unique pattern of
distribution resulting from its primary uses, the distribu-
tions of land uses and crops, and the chemical and physical
properties of the pesticide. Since 1992 widespread trends in
concentrations of individual pesticides have varied, mainly
0 20 40 SO 80 100 r J
Percent of streams with one or more pesticide compounds driven by shifts m pesticide use due to regulatory changes,
exceeding a chronic aquatic-life benchmark market forces and introduction of new pesticides.
Agriculture
Urban
Mixed
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 7
-------
For example, levels of diazinon, one of the most frequently detected insecticides during the
1990s, decreased from the late 1990s through 2011 because of reduced agricultural use and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory phase-out of diazinon for urban uses. In con-
trast, fipronil, an insecticide that disrupts the central nervous system of insects, was the pesticide
most frequently found at levels of potential concern for aquatic organisms in urban streams during
2002—2011. Fipronil registration and subsequent use in the U.S. began during the late 1990s and it
was used as an alternative to organophosphate insecticides for residential and commercial applica-
tions during the early 2000s.
"The information gained through this important research is critical to the evaluation of the risks
associated with existing levels of pesticides," said William Werkheiser, USGS Associate Director
for Water.
Sampling Scope Smaller Than Ideal
According to the USGS, the potential for adverse effects on aquatic life is likely underestimated
in these results because resource constraints limited the scope of monitoring to less than half of
the more than 400 pesticides currently used in agriculture each year. In addition, this assessment
focused on pesticides dissolved in water, whereas some hydrophobic pesticides that were outside the
scope of this study, such as legacy organochlorines and pyrethroid insecticides, are important as
contaminants of sediment and tissues and should be considered when undergoing more thorough
evaluations of stream ecosystems. Since these pesticides were left out of this assessment, the USGS
believes that this study underestimates the potential for harmful effects on aquatic life.
The USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program is continually working to fill these
data gaps by adding new pesticides that come into use, such as the neonicotinoid and pyrethroid
insecticides, improving characterization of short-term acute exposures, and enhancing evaluations
of sediment and other environmental media.
This analysis is presented in "Pesticides in U.S. Streams and Rivers: Occurrence and trends during
1992—2011," a feature article in the September 2014 edition of the Environmental Science and
Technology journal. The article and additional information including data, reports and maps on
pesticide status, trends and use are available online on the USGS' Pesticide National Synthesis
Project website.
Methylmercury Found in 25 Percent of U.S. Waters Tested
A 2014 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report, Mercury in the Nation's Streams—Levels, Trends
and Implications, presents a comprehensive assessment of mercury contamination in streams across
the United States. It highlights the importance of environmental processes, monitoring, and
control strategies for understanding and reducing stream mercury levels. The report summarizes
selected stream studies conducted by the USGS since the late 1990s, while also drawing on scien-
tific literature and datasets from other sources.
Previous national mercury assessments by other agencies have focused largely on lakes. Although
numerous studies of mercury in streams have been conducted at local and regional scales, recent
USGS studies provide the most comprehensive assessment of streams across the United States and
yield insights about the importance of watershed characteristics relative to mercury inputs. The
report also summarizes information from other environments (e.g., lakes, wetlands, soil, atmo-
sphere, glacial ice) to help readers understand how mercury varies in space and time.
What is Methylmercury?
Methylmercury is a toxic organic compound that bioaccumulates in the food web. The high-
est concentrations can be found in predator fish such as bass, mackerel, northern pike, shark,
swordfish and tuna, and potentially in humans who consume large quantities of affected predator
fish. Methylmercury is created by combining inorganic mercury (released into the atmosphere by
certain industrial activities) with natural processes and sources, particularly where mercury enters
Many Sampled
Streams Exceed
Aquatic Life
Benchmarks for
Pesticides
(continued)
8 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
-------
Methylmercury
Found in 25
Percent of U.S.
Waters Tested
(continued)
Report's Key Findings
• Methylmercury concentrations in fish exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency criterion for the protection of human health at about one in four streams across
the United States. Fish methylmercury concentrations exceeded 0.3 parts per million—the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fish tissue mercury criterion for the protection of
human health—in predator fish (i.e., a fish at the top of the food web) from about one-
fourth of nearly 300 streams sampled in a nationwide survey. In response to the widespread
contamination of fish, mercury has been effectively removed from many products and waste
streams, resulting in about a 60 percent decrease in emissions in the United States since
1990. However, to reduce mercury levels in fish to fully meet human health criteria, further
reductions in mercury emissions are necessary.
• Wetlands increase the amount of inorganic mercury converted to methylmercury, the
form that accumulates to harmful levels in fish. Wetland characteristics, such as limited
dissolved oxygen concentrations and abundant organic matter, provide favorable environ-
ments for microorganisms to affect the conversion of inorganic mercury to methylmercury.
Thus, wetland construction or restoration (for example, to improve habitat or to filter
nutrients and sediment) should balance the potential for increased methylmercury produc-
tion against the anticipated ecological and water quality benefits of the wetlands. In fact,
across the United States, methylmercury concentrations in streams and in fish generally were
highest in undeveloped areas with abundant wetlands, which provide ideal conditions for
methylmercury production. In contrast, methylmercury levels in largemouth bass from urban
streams were the lowest of all land uses and land covers studied. This occurred even though
inorganic mercury inputs were higher in urban settings than in agricultural, undeveloped or
mixed land use/land cover settings. Methylmercury concentrations were lower than expected
in urban streams because factors conducive to methylmercury production, such as the
amount of wetlands and dissolved organic carbon, also generally are low in these ecosystems.
These findings contrast starkly with those for many other contaminants in rivers and streams,
which tend to be high in urban and agricultural areas.
• In contrast to other environmental contaminants, mercury emission reduction strate-
gies need to consider global mercury sources in addition to domestic sources. Reduc-
tions in domestic mercury emissions are likely to result in lower mercury levels in fish in the
eastern United States, where domestic emissions contribute a large portion of atmospherically
deposited mercury. In contrast, emission controls will provide smaller benefits in the western
United States, where reduced domestic emissions might be offset by increased emissions from
Asia. Implementation of the recently adopted U.S. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and
worldwide Minamata Convention goals should lead to reductions in both U.S. and global
mercury emissions.
• Existing mercury monitoring programs focus mostly on methylmercury concentra-
tions in fish, and they lack design elements and data to link these levels to mercury
sources. Most programs do not track methylmercury concentrations in fish over time in
ways that support rigorous, nationally consistent trend assessments. Given the complexities
of mercury emissions, transport pathways and ecological factors that influence the extent of
methylmercury contamination in fish, a multimedia monitoring approach is critical to track
the effectiveness of management actions intended to reduce mercury emissions and resulting
environmental mercury levels.
aquatic ecosystems and becomes methylated by anaerobic organisms in low-oxygen environments,
such as wetlands.
Mercury contamination in fish is the primary reason for issuing fish consumption advisories; these
exist in every state. Much of the mercury originates from combustion of coal and can travel long
distances in the atmosphere before being deposited. This can result in mercury-contaminated fish
in areas with no obvious source of mercury pollution.
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 9
-------
The report explores several topics in detail, including: (1) why mercury in fish is a concern,
(2) how mercury moves through ecosystems, (3) where the highest concentrations exist across the
country, and (4) how mercury levels vary over time,
"Understanding the source of mercury, and how mercury is transported and transformed within
stream ecosystems, can help water resource managers identify which watersheds are most vulner-
able to mercury contamination. They can then prioritize monitoring and management actions,"
said William Werkheiser, USGS Associate Director for Water.
This report is one within a series of publications, The Quality of Our Nation's Waters, which
describe major findings of the USGS on water quality issues of regional and national concern. The
information in this series is intended primarily for those interested or involved in resource manage-
ment and protection, conservation, regulation and policymaking at regional and national levels.
In addition, the information should be of interest to those at a local level who wish to know more
about the general quality of streams and groundwater in areas near where they live and how that
quality compares with other areas across the United States.. The USGS hopes this report offers
valuable information that will foster increased citizen awareness and involvement in the protection
and restoration of U.S. waters.
Notes from the States, Tribes and Localities
River Litter is No Match for Baltimore's Inner Harbor Water Wheel
Litter carried into waterways by stormwater runoff presents both environmental and aesthetic chal-
lenges for cities around the world. The city of Baltimore, Maryland, is addressing this problem in
an innovative and attention-grabbing way. In May 2014 the city launched its Inner Harbor Water
Wheel, a floating solar- and water-powered trash collecting system capable of removing 50,000
pounds of trash daily. Looking like a cross between a water snail and a floating space ship, the
Water Wheel has become a media sensation and tourist favorite. The best part? The Water Wheel
is proving to be extremely successful at its job.
The Water Wheel harnesses the power of both water and sunlight
to pick up litter and debris flowing down the Jones Falls River, an
urban stream that empties into Baltimore's Inner Harbor. How
does it work? The Water Wheel includes two upstream-facing
trash containment booms that intercept trash carried on the sur-
face of the water (see diagram for details). The current of the Jones
Falls River pushes the trash along the booms, which ultimately
direct the trash to a conveyor belt. The river current provides
power to turn the Water Wheel's paddle wheel, which moves a
conveyor belt that lifts the trash and debris out of the water and
deposits it in a dumpster barge. A solar panel array provides addi-
tional power to keep the machine running when the water current
is too slow to turn the paddle wheel. When the dumpster barge is
full, it is towed away by boat and a new dumpster is put in place.
A YouTube video is available that shows the Water Wheel in action and offers an up-close tour of
the different sections of the barge.
Between May 2014 and early January 2015, the Water Wheel intercepted more than 140 tons of
trash before it could enter Baltimore Harbor, including:
• 83,750 plastic bottles
• 105,159 polystyrene containers
8 4,193,000 cigarette butts
• 2,117 glass bottles
Methylmercury
Found in 25
Percent of U.S.
Waters Tested
(continued)
The Inner Harbor Water Wheel intercepts trash floating in
a Baltimore, Maryland river before it can enter Baltimore's
Inner Harbor.
1 0 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
-------
River Litter is
No Match for
Ba/timore's Inner
Harbor Water
Wheel
(continued)
• 39,850 grocery bags
• 73,299 chip bags
• 274 sports balls
Water Wheel is One Part of the Solution
The Water Wheel is one element of a larger ongoing effort to clean up Baltimore Harbor. In
2009, Baltimore's Waterfront Partnership—a coalition of property owners, city officials, nonprofit
organizations and citizens committed to restoring and protecting Baltimore Harbor—launched
its Healthy Harbor Initiative, an effort to improve the Harbor so it will be both swimmable and
fishable by2020. In 2011, the Partnership published apian, Healthy Harbor Baltimore: Creatinga
Cleaner, Greener Future for Our Neighborhoods, Streams & Harbor, which outlines specific solutions
to address the Harbor's key problems of trash, sewage leaks and stormwater runoff
To bring the Water Wheel to life, the Partnership cooperated with Clearwater Mills, LLC, and the
design firm of Ziger/Snead. Construction was funded by Constellation Energy, the Maryland Port
Authority, Brown Advisory, The Abell Foundation, and Marriott Hotels. For more pictures and
diagrams, see the Ziger/Snead Water Wheel project website.
Water Wheel to Provide a Source of Revenue
In early February 2015, the Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, announced a
tentative agreement that will allow the trash collected by the Water Wheel to fuel electricity
for Baltimore homes. By doing so, the city of Baltimore will become the first city in the world
to use litter reclaimed from its waterways to generate electricity. "This unique process will pro-
tect our harbor, while simultaneously creating renewable energy out of our trash," said Mayor
Rawlings-Blake.
Inner Harbor Water Wheel
Jones Falls River, Baltimore, Maryland
River Current F ow
The Inner Harbor Water Wheel consists of the following parts:
1. Two trash containment booms direct trash and debris to the front of the Water Wheel.
2. The debris-raking system helps to move trash and debris to the front of the conveyor belt.
3. The conveyor belt lifts trash and debris from the water and deposits it into the dumpster barge.
4. The sail fabric protects the Water Wheel from wind and rain.
5. The paddle wheel harnesses the current of the river to turn the conveyor belt.
6. The dumpster barge stores trash and debris.
7. The solar panel array provides additional power to turn the paddle wheel.
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 1 1
-------
Although the city plans to take advantage of the litter collected, the ultimate goal is to reduce the
amount of litter that reaches the Inner Harbor, notes Baltimore Public Works Director Rudolph
S. Chow. "All of our partners encourage all of our citizens and visitors to join with us in stopping
litter at its sources so that we will no longer need to collect it from our waterways." The Watershed
Partnership's Healthy Harbor plan will be working toward this goal using innovative technologies
like the Water Wheel, as well as education and outreach efforts within the watersheds draining
into Baltimore's Inner Harbor. For more information, see the Healthy Harbor Baltimore website.
Watershed Approach is Key to Restoring Estuarine Waters in Southern Louisiana
State, local and federal water resource agencies in partnership with local landowners have dedicated
years to improving water quality in southern Louisiana's Lake Arthur and Lower Mermentau River
watershed. Now, thanks to extensive planning and implementation efforts, they are seeing big
results.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) classifies the tidally dominated
estuarine waters of the Lake Arthur and Lower Mermentau River assessment unit (AU) as basin
subsegment 050402 (Figure 1). The predominant land uses in the AU's 29,200-acre watershed
are rice crop (32 percent), water (20 percent), pasture/hay field (20 percent) and freshwater marsh
(12 percent).
In the late 1990s, LDEQ's ambient water
quality data indicated high concentrations
of total suspended solids (TSS), turbid-
ity and nutrients, as well as low dissolved
oxygen (DO) concentrations in the Lower
Mermentau River and Lake Arthur. The
DO criterion for the Lower Mermentau
River requires that no more than 10 percent
of monthly samples may fall below 5.0 mil-
ligrams per liter (mg/L). In 1998 DO
values remained below the state's criterion
of 5.0 mg/L for seven months of the year;
the lowest value, 2.37 mg/L, occurred in
August. Although Louisiana does not cur-
rently have a numeric criterion for TSS, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
recommends a maximum TSS guideline of
29 mg/L to ensure support of the fish and
wildlife propagation (FWP) designated use.
LDEQ's ambient water quality data indicated
that TSS values exceeded the guideline during
June and November of 1998. Likewise, the
state does not currently have numeric criteria for nutrients; it does, however, provide narrative cri-
teria requiring that the naturally occurring range of nitrogen and phosphorus be maintained. The
criteria use site-specific studies to establish limits for nutrients to avoid aquatic growth that would
create a public nuisance or interfere with designated water uses.
On the basis of these data and other water quality assessments, LDEQ added the Lake Arthur
and Lower Mermentau River AU to the 1999 Clean Water Action section 303 (d) list of impaired
waters for failing to support its FWP designated use due to low DO and high TSS, nutrients,
turbidity, oil and grease, and ammonia. The suspected sources of impairment included minor
municipal point sources, crop production, petroleum activities, individual septic tanks and flow
alterations/modifications.
In 2001 EPA completed a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for turbidity, TSS and siltation for
the Mermentau River Basin, including the Lake Arthur and Lower Mermentau River AU. The
River Litter is
No Match for
Baitimore's Inner
Harbor Water
Wheel
(continued)
Lake Arthur and Lower Mermentau River
LDEQ Basin Subsegment 050402
DEC*
GIS CENTER
Arthur
Biscuit Island
Lake
050402
the ICWW
and Grand Lake
Mermentau Basin
Figure 1. Southern Louisiana's Lower Mermentau River flows through Lake
Arthur before discharging into Grand Lake. Together these two water bodies
comprise LDEQ basin subsegment 050402.
1 2 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
-------
TMDL identified fluvial erosion processes as the dominant contributor to high turbidity, TSS and
siltation levels. In 2002 EPA completed a TMDL for DO, nutrients and ammonia in portions of
the Lower Mermentau River Basin, including the Lake Arthur and Lower Mermentau River AU.
This TMDL indicated that a 40 percent reduction in oxygen-demanding substances (e.g., carbona-
ceous biological oxygen demand, ammonia nitrogen, organic nitrogen, sediment oxygen demand)
would be necessary to meet the state's DO water quality standard. The TMDL also indicated that
DO would likely improve if nutrient concentrations were reduced.
Landowner Participation Key to Planning Efforts
From 2002 through 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) partnered with watershed landowners to develop comprehensive
resource management systems—plans that included sets of approved conservation practices neces-
sary to achieve conservation goals. The practices included irrigation water management, residue
and nutrient management, conservation crop rotation, grade stabilization structures and wetland
wildlife habitat management. Through USDA's ranking criteria, lands that drain directly to the
Lower Mermentau River and Lake Arthur were prioritized for cost-share and technical assistance.
NRCS partnered with the Gulf Coast Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Vermilion
SWCD and Jefferson Davis SWCD to provide technical and/or cost-share assistance to help
23 Lower Mermentau and Lake Arthur watershed landowners implement BMPs on approximately
2,645 acres: 1,551 acres on rice fields, 742 acres on crawfish operations, 193 acres on soybean
fields and 158 acres on pastures. The BMPs included residue management (seasonal) on approxi-
mately 1,307 acres, conservation crop rotation on 1,242 acres, irrigation water management on
1,711 acres, integrated pest management on 1,265 acres, nutrient management on 1,006 acres, wet-
land wildlife habitat on 884 acres and prescribed grazing on 125 acres. Landowners often applied
multiple BMPs on the same acreage. Funding for BMPs included approximately $264,158 in
USDA Farm Bill funds and $85,800 in EPA CWA section 319 funds (provided by LDEQ).
Long-Term Dedication Pays Off
LDEQ collected water quality data in the Lower Mermentau River at Lake Arthur during four
sampling periods: 1998, 2003, 2007 and 2010/2011. Between the 1998 and 2010/2011 sampling
periods, average annual DO concentrations increased from 4.7 mg/L to 7.8 mg/L. In all but one
month, DO levels during the 2010/2011 sampling period remained above 5.0 mg/L, thereby
meeting the DO criterion necessary to fully support the Lower Mermentau River's FWP desig-
nated use (Figure 2). TSS values exceeded EPA's
guideline maximum of 29 mg/L during June
and November 1998, but they have remained
below this level in all sampling periods since
that time. Average annual TSS concentrations
declined from 27.5 mg/L in 1998 to 12.3 mg/L
in 2010/2011. In addition, monitoring data
collected since 1998 show that average annual
TP concentrations decreased from 0.27 mg/L in
1998 to 0.13 mg/L in 2010/2011. On the basis
of these monitoring data, LDEQ removed the
impairments on the Lower Mermentau River
and Lake Arthur AU, including sediment/silt-
ation, TSS, turbidity and ammonia (removed
from the state's 2010 list of impaired waters) and
DO, nitrate/nitrite and TP (removed from the
2012 list of impaired waters). LDEQ reported
this successful water quality restoration proj-
Figure 2. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Lower Mermentau River at ecl: 011 FTAs Nonpoint Source Success Stories
the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge monitoring site. website in 2014.
Watershed
Approach is
Key to Restoring
Estuarine Waters
in Southern
Louisiana
(continued)
Concentration of DO in Lower Mermentau River at Lacassine National
Wildlife Reguge
11
10
9
cuj 6
E
5
4
3
2
1
0
I, ll
II
I 1 w
riiirm
r ; r n
ipi
ii IT
r f ITT
I Ml! Til
/yv*/////
¦ 1998
¦ 2003
¦ 2007
2010/2011
u
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 1 3
-------
Watershed
Approach is
Key to Restoring
Estuarine Waters
in Southern
Louisiana
(continued)
Contracts with landowners will remain
in place through 2018, so water qual-
ity should continue to improve in the
Lower Mermentau River and Lake Arthur
(Figure 3). Using CWA section 319 funds,
LDEQ hired a watershed coordinator to
work with stakeholders on an implementa-
tion plan to continue activities and programs
focused on further reducing nonpoint source
pollution sources in the watershed.
[For more information, contact Gwendolyn
Berthelot, Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 4314, Baton
Rouge, LA 70821-4314. Phone: 225-219-
0879; Email: gwendolyn.berthelot@la.gov]
Figure 3. The water quality in Lake Arthur, seen
here, has improved as a result of widespread and
sustained nonpoint source pollution control efforts.
Notes on Education
BUBBA Highlights Innovative Stormwater Management
Want to win a BUBBA? If, within the last five years, you've installed an urban stormwater man-
agement project that uses natural features or innovative practices, you might be eligible. In 2014
the Chesapeake Stormwater Network (Network) launched its Best Urban BMP in the Bay Award
(BUBBA) contest to recognize community leaders who have formulated new and innovative tech-
niques for managing stormwater in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Beginning in 2015, projects
outside of the Chesapeake Bay watershed will also be eligible for the contest.
The Network developed its BUBBA contest to showcase innovative best management practices and
low impact design, with the intention of promoting the use of unique, effective solutions to storm-
water management challenges throughout the Bay watershed and beyond. To be considered for a
BUBBA, a project must have been installed within the five-year period leading up to the contest
and cannot be a proprietary practice (local reproductions of proprietary technology are acceptable).
Unlike many contests that focus on the design phase of potential projects, the BUBBAs recognize
practices that are in place and already functioning. As a result, the contest is raising the visibility of
projects that are actively improving water quality across the Bay watershed. By involving Network
members and the public in the voting processes, the contest engages the Network's existing mem-
bers, attracts new members, and serves as a public outreach and education tool.
"The contest created a fun buzz about stormwater management," said Tom Schueler, the Network's
executive director, "and that's not always easy to do."
The BUBBA's Inaugural Year
In 2014, people around the Chesapeake Bay watershed submitted 76 innovative stormwater man-
agement projects for consideration. Out of these submissions, a team of qualified jurors selected
18 finalists—a first, second and third place winner for each of six categories. The Network posted
the six first-place projects on its website and then invited its members and the public to review the
projects and vote for their favorite. More than 1,800 people voted. The project receiving the most
public votes received a $5,000 grand prize and was declared the 2014 BUBBA. The six categories
available in 2014 included:
1. Best Homeowner BMP. This category included practices installed on a residential property
(generally costing less than $5,000). In 2014, the Harn Aqueduct Rain Garden won first place
in this category for its use of conservation landscaping to treat runoff from the property, improve
water quality and provide habitat while enhancing aesthetics (Figure 1).
1 4 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
-------
BUBBA
Highlights
Innovative
Stormwater
Management
(continued)
Figure 1. Jeff and Joan Harn's home has a walk-out patio (left photo).The poorly drained property was
under constant threat of basement flooding before the project. Because the only available space for a
rain garden was located uphill from the patio and existing downspouts, the homeowners opted to build a
short aqueduct to deliver roof runoff to the rain garden (middle and right photos).
2. Best Innovative BMP. This category included unconventional or unique ways of treating or
managing stormwater. The winning BMP in 2014 uses the power of algae driven by photosynthe-
sis to remove nutrients and pollutants from water at the Maryland Port Administration's Dundalk
Marine Terminal (Figure 2).
3. Best Ultra-Urban BMP. This category included practices that
were built in redevelopment or infill projects in urban areas with
more than 75 percent site impervious cover. The 2014 winner of
this category, the city of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, transformed a
dangerous intersection into a public amenity. The project calmed
traffic and increased pedestrian safety by narrowing the traffic
lane. Stormwater management features included permeable paver
parking areas and patio, curb extensions and rain gardens, and
a cistern that captures stormwater from the roof of a brewery
adjacent to the intersection (Figures 3 and 4). This project won
the public's vote for the best overall project—earning the $5,000
grand prize and the title of "2014 BUBBA."
Figure 2. The Algal Turf Scrubbers project is a retrofit
solution for treating nutrient-impaired waters. The system
relies on native filamentous algae to remove nitrogen and
phosphorus from the water as it flows along a raceway. The
algae is harvested and used as a cogeneration fuel source
at an incinerator.
4. Best Combination of BMPs in a Series. This category
included projects that used two or more BMPs or LID practices
in a series to treat stormwater. Successful projects in this category
demonstrated their ability to function during heavy rainfall events
and provided a link between the built environment and the natu-
ral landscape. The 2014 winning project included a green roof
pervious pavers, rain harvesting practices and bioretention facili-
ties at Morgan State University's Center for Built Environment
and Infrastructure Studies in Baltimore, Maryland.
Figure 3.The city of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, implemented the grand prize-winning redesign of the
Plum and Walnut Intersection at the Lancaster Brewing Company. The city removed a designated
turn lane (left photo) and used the new space for rain gardens, a permeable patio and permeable
parking spaces (right).
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 1 5
-------
BUBBA
Highlights
Innovative
Stormwater
Management
(continued)
5. Best Habitat Creation in a BMP. This cat-
egory included projects that treated stormwater
while also providing a unique blend of aquatic or
upland wildlife habitat (greater than one acre).
The 2014 winner was a restored wetland at the
Davidsonville Wildlife Sanctuary (in Maryland )
which captures and holds runoff and hosts an array
of unusual native plants.
6. Best Stream Restoration. This category
included projects in stream corridors that were
designed specifically to improve the function,
stability and ecosystem services of an urban stream.
The winning project in 2014 included three stream
restoration elements in Clements Creek, north of
Annapolis, Maryland.
Figure 4. The city of Lancaster included curb
extensions and rain gardens in its award-
winning ultra-urban BMP project to increase
pedestrian safety and treat stormwater runoff.
The permeable parking spaces are visible in
the background.
2014 Contest Was Inexpensive and Effective
The Network carried out the 2014 contest for approximately $20,000. Costs included about
$10,000 in Network staff time—$3,000 for website development and $7,000 for prizes.
Sponsorships from stormwater-related businesses in the Bay watershed are offsetting the costs for
the 2015 contest.
Overall implementation costs were kept to a minimum, thanks to the generosity of stormwater
professionals around the Bay. First, a four-person volunteer steering committee composed of
stormwater experts worked together to craft the contest's rules and structure. Once finalized, the
Network advertised the contest to its 7,000 members, who then dispersed the information to oth-
ers who might have been interested.
To enter the contest, a project representative submitted the project's technical specifications
(e.g., drainage area, runoff volume treated, percent imperviousness of drainage area), a narrative,
and at least four photographs, including one photograph of the site before the project was imple-
mented. Once all submissions were received, the steering committee completed a preliminary
screening of the projects and developed a list of 10 finalists for each of the six categories. The com-
mittee forwarded each category-specific list to a two-person team of volunteer jurors selected from
people with pertinent stormwater experience and expertise.
Each juror reviewed the submissions for their category (requiring approximately six hours) and
then coordinated via phone (approximately two hours) with the other team members to select
the first, second and third place projects. The first place project from each category moved on as
a finalist to the public voting portion of the contest. The Network invited its members and the
general public to vote online for the grand prize BUBBA winner.
Every contest participant received a certificate recognizing their efforts, explained Cecilia Lane, the
Network's stormwater coordinator. "Also, each finalist received a gift certificate to a local native
plant nursery—that allowed us to funnel resources back into stormwater protection projects in the
Bay watershed."
BUBBAs Expand
The success of the inaugural BUBBA contest is prompting the Network to repeat the contest in
2015, with one big change—the addition of a new "Best Innovative BMP Outside of the Bay" cat-
egory, which encourages project submissions from places outside of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
"There are many innovative projects out there. We'd like to learn about them so we can adopt and
apply them in the Chesapeake Bay watershed," notes Schueler.
1 6 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
-------
BUBBA
Highlights
Innovative
Stormwater
Management
(continued)
Submissions for the 2015 contest were due in mid-February. Winners will be announced in late
spring. Like last year, the public will be invited to vote for this year's grand prize project—and the
coveted title of 2015 BUBBA. Keep your eye on the BUBBA website!
[For more information, contact Cecilia Lane, Stormwater Coordinator, Chesapeake Stormwater
Network, 8030 Main Street, 3rd Floor, Ellicott City, MD 21043. Phone: 410-750-7635; Email:
watershedgal@hotmail.com.]
Canoemobile: Connecting Urban Youth with Local Rivers
Remember the Bookmobile, the library-on-wheels that brought books and other materials to
far-flung residential areas? Well, now imagine you live in the inner city, surrounded by buildings
and pavement, with little access to the natural world. What if, one day, nature-on-wheels arrived
at your school? That is the concept behind Wilderness Inquiry's popular Canoemobile program,
launched in 2010. Every year, the group disperses its three Canoemobiles (each comprised of a van,
a trailer, six 24-foot Voyageur canoes and seven staff members) to cities across the country, con-
necting thousands of urban youth with nature.
A Day on the Water
In 2014, Canoemobiles visited nearly 30 communities and served more than 9,000 participants,
including 2,000 people in the Delaware River basin alone (Figure 1). Although somewhat variable
depending on the location and partner organizations' expertise and priorities, a typical Canoemobile
field trip consists of a canoe tour and land-based activities. When they first arrive, students are wel-
comed and engage in a group activity. Then, they are split into smaller groups; some stay on land and
some head to the water. Those preparing for canoeing find suitable life jackets and paddles, split into
boat groups of nine participants and one Wilderness Inquiry outdoor educator/boat captain, review
safety rules, and learn the basics of paddling. Next, groups of students paddle on the river for 30 min-
utes to an hour, learning to work together with their boat group while experiencing the local river and
exploring new wildlife and historic places. The students on land participate in a series of experiential
learning activities, such as water quality testing, team building, and fish and wildlife identification.
"It is incredible to witness the transforma-
tion that happens throughout the course
of a few hours," explains Ashley Pethan,
Wilderness Inquiry's Canoemobile
Coordinator. "Many students arrive bored
or worried or scared. Once they start
walking to the dock to get into the boat,
it gets real for them. They are actually
going to get in a canoe with nine other
people and paddle on the river—one they
have likely seen from afar or driven over
on bridges hundreds of times. Loading
the boat is always a bit tricky, with people
moving, not fully understanding how
their movements affect the boat and the
others around them. This is usually the
time when people, of all ages, are most
fearful. Then, finally, they launch from
the dock. After a few uneasy, uncoordi-
nated strokes, the group starts to feel how
stable the canoes are. They get a feel for
it, paddling in tandem, and really cruising
on the river. When returning to the dock,
every single one of them wants to stay out
on the water."
Figure 1. Students canoe along the Delaware River in Philadelphia. In a two-week
period in October 2014, Canoemobile engaged more than 2,000 people in the
Delaware River Basin cities of Camden and Chester in New Jersey, Philadelphia
and Reading in Pennsylvania, and Wilmington in Delaware. Supported by a $59,333
Urban Waters Small Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wilderness
Inquiry and many partners provided opportunities for youth to experience their
local waterways. During the two weeks, 32 schools and youth-serving organizations
participated, with support from 24 program partners, eight hosting organizations and
three marine safety organizations.
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 1 7
-------
Canoemobile:
Connecting
Urban Youth with
Local Rivers
(continued)
Lasting Impacts
The Canoemobile program typically returns to the same cities annually, often staying longer in
subsequent years and expanding its number of youth participants. Ideally, the Canoemobile also
serves as a catalyst for community partners to collaborate and provide high-quality environmental
education to underserved urban youth. Each local Canoemobile event is led by a unique combina-
tion of partners, including schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and city, state and federal
agencies. After successful completion of Canoemobile programming, these partners often continue
working together to enhance youth engagement on their public lands and urban waters.
UrriiHin
m
!ii!iiiiiiii!
'IS 1!!!'
I H » NUttHM
For example, in 2014, Canoemobile joined an annual community event hosted at a park on the
Christina River in Wilmington, Delaware (Figure 2). "More than 200 community members had
the opportunity to paddle on the river, most for the first time, expressing that they never knew
opportunities like this existed," explains Pethan. Now, after the event, the hosting organization
(Old Brandywine Village., Inc., a commu-
nity organization) is considering construct-
ing a permanent dock to offer year-round
paddling experiences in a community
with a limited number of access points to
river recreation. In addition, Pethan notes,
"this event has sparked conversations with
local nonprofits about ways to incorporate
Canoemobile programming and other out-
door education opportunities into existing
youth programs within the community."
The design of the Canoemobile program
also helps to facilitate lasting engagement
by individuals. The program is modeled
after a Minnesota program called the
Urban Wilderness Canoe Adventures
(UWCA). The UWCA conducts oppor-
tunities within the framework of the
Pyramid of Engagement model, a step-
wise continuum of outdoor experiences
that starts with introductory day trips,
Figure 2. Canoemobile takes community members for a paddle on the Christina progresses to overnights and longer trips
River at the 2014 Brandywine Village Fair in Wilmington, Delaware. farther away from home, and culminates
with internships, college scholarships and
careers within the outdoor sector. The Canoemobile program replicates this pyramid by provid-
ing thousands of introductory outdoor experiences on urban waterways. As the Canoemobile
becomes more established in a given community, Wilderness Inquiry and other partners begin
to offer additional experiences to allow the participants to work up the pyramid. "In many cases,
youth that have participated in a Canoemobile day experience meet a nonprofit organization or
land management agency that sparks their interest and they get plugged into the opportunities that
organization offers," notes Pethan.
Flexible Funding Reflects Community Diversity
Funding sources differ in every city. Some community partners build the Canoemobile experi-
ence into their annual budgets. In other project areas, Wilderness Inquiry has long-term grants or
cost-share agreements that cover the program, or Wilderness Inquiry and its partners identify dif-
ferent funding sources each year. In most cities, the funding comes from a combination of several
sources, explains Pethan. "Wilderness Inquiry and its partners offer resources and support in their
respective expertise to split costs across all those involved."
1 8 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
-------
Canoemobile:
Connecting
Urban Youth with
Local Rivers
(continued)
These educational and financial contributions by program partners have been vital to
Canoemobile's success. The students' enthusiasm and obvious joy keep the partners committed to
the cause. "We hope the Canoemobile experience has sparked curiosity, pushed comfort zones and
inspired connection with the outdoors and with each other," says Pethan. "And, of course, we hope
they learned something!"
To see if Canoemobile already serves an area near you, refer to the online map and schedule.
[For more information contact Ashley Pethan, Canoemobile Coordinator, Wilderness Inquiry, 808 14th
Avenue, SE, Minneapolis, MN55414. Phone: 612-676-9400; Email: ashley@wildemessinquiry.org]
Reviews and Announcements
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
Federal Agencies Sharing Data to Better Quantify Conservation Benefits
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have
launched a new partnership agreement that will help provide a clear picture of the benefits of farm-
ers' conservation practices on U.S. water quality by developing conservation intensity data sheets
that reflect the value of conservation actions. Under this partnership, the DO Is U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) will share data
to help quantify the benefits of voluntary agricultural practices at a watershed scale. This infor-
mation will strengthen the effectiveness of state and federal nutrient reduction strategies while
protecting the privacy of individual farmers. The agreement was announced at the Mississippi
River Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force's October 2014 public meeting. For more
information see the USGS' October 21, 2014 news release.
Data Resources
EPA Releases Updated Rainfall Erosivity Factor Calculator
EPA has published an updated calculator to help construction sites calculate their rainfall erosiv-
ity factor used in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, or RUSLE. The updated calculator
uses data from the NRCS RUSLE, Version 2 (RUSLE2) database. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authorities have the option to waive stormwater per-
mitting requirements for small construction sites with a low erosivity potential. If allowed by the
NPDES permitting authority, this calculator can be used by small construction sites to determine
their eligibility for a low erosivity waiver. Operators of small construction sites in areas where the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the NPDES permitting authority might qualify
for the waiver if the "R" factor is less than 5.0 during the period of construction activity, at the
discretion of the permitting authority. For more information about the construction rainfall
erosivity waiver, see EPA's Stormwater Phase II Final Rule Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver
fact sheet.
Grasslands Tool Available Online
In mid-2014 the Commission for Environmental Cooperation—an intergovernmental organiza-
tion to support cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement partners, the
United States, Mexico and Canada—released an online tool that provides information on approxi-
mately 100 beneficial grassland management practices. Ranging from local techniques to national
and continental approaches, the tool contains practical and innovative ideas for conserving and
restoring native grasslands as well as boosting ranchers' economic stability. The beneficial manage-
ment practices were identified by analyzing grassland stewardship-related publications, reports and
documents acquired from ranchers, ranching associations, conservation organizations, government
programs and academic institutions that were published between 1993 and 2013. The practices
range from using effective rest periods after grazing to participating in apprenticeship programs,
and all offer tangible strategies to help sustain healthy grasslands and ranching communities.
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 1 9
-------
New Search Engine Enhances Access to USDA Research
The USDA's National Agricultural Library (NAL) recently unveiled PubAg, a user-friendly search
engine that gives the public free access to research published by USDA scientists. PubAg is a new
portal for literature searches and full-text access of more than 40,000 scientific journal articles by
USDA researchers, mostly from 1997 to 2014. New articles by USDA researchers will be added
almost daily, and older articles might be added if resources allow.
North America WaterWatch Website Launched
In a joint effort, the USGS and the Water Survey of Canada (WSC) have produced the
North America WaterWatch (NAWW), an online website that displays streamflow conditions
throughout much of North America. The site provides a fast, easy-to-use, cartography-based,
central Web interface for users to access real-time streamflow conditions for both Canada (at about
1,000 stations) and the United States (at about 8,000 stations). The NAWW site is arranged simi-
larly to USGS Water Watch. Real-time instantaneous flow data are compared against historical
daily streamflow percentiles at hydrometric monitoring stations. The stations are then color coded
on a map to indicate current flow conditions in relation to normal conditions based on statistical
thresholds (i.e., much below normal, below normal, normal, above normal, much above normal,
high).
Roadway Water Management Webcasts Available
EPA's Office of Wastewater Management and the Federal Highway Administration's Office
of Project Development and Environmental Review have joined together to develop a
series of webcasts highlighting transportation-related water quality issues. Past webcasts are avail-
able for download, and include:
• Innovative Transportation Stormwater Management: Green Infrastructure in Road Projects
(March 2014)
• Roadway Design and Maintenance of Post-Construction Stormwater Controls (June 2014)
• Winter Roadway Deicing/Anti-icing Operations: Approaches to Help Keep Roads Clear and
Waters Clean (November 2014)
Stormwater
EPA Releases New Low Impact Development Barrier Busters Fact Sheet
In October 2014 EPA released the latest fact sheet in its low impact development (LID)
Barrier Busters series. This fact sheet series is primarily intended for state and local decision makers
who are considering adopting LID, but who have questions or concerns about possible obstacles.
The latest fact sheet, Soil Constraints and Low Impact Development: Careful Planning Helps LID
Work in Clay Soils, highlights important issues to consider when trying to implement LID in areas
with soil that is compacted or has a high clay content.
Green Infrastructure Collaborative Formed
In October 2014 EPA joined with federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations and private-
sector entities to form the Green Infrastructure Collaborative, a network to help communities
implement green infrastructure for stormwater control. The collaborative will build capacity for
green infrastructure implementation by providing a platform for national stakeholders to: (1) lever-
age joint efforts to promote the multiple community benefits of green infrastructure, (2) build
and share knowledge around emerging green infrastructure technologies and policy issues, and
(3) facilitate shared inquiry into the best ways to encourage adoption of green infrastructure tech-
nologies at the local level.
New Getting to Green Financing Options Guide Available
In December 2014 EPA released a new guide, Getting to Green: Paying for Green Infrastructure,
Finance Options and Resources for Local Decision-Makers. The document summarizes various
New Watershed
Tool Helps
Managers Meet
Watershed Goals
(continued)
20 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
-------
funding sources that can be tapped to support stormwater management programs or finance indi-
vidual projects. The document includes several examples of municipal programs that have used the
different funding source types. It also offers additional resources such as a comparative matrix that
describes the advantages and disadvantages of funding source types.
United Nations Environment Program Releases Green Infrastructure Guide
The Green Infrastructure Guide for Water Management: Ecosystem-based Management Approaches for
Water-Related Infrastructure Projects was released in September 2014 as part of World Water Week.
The guide was developed through a collaboration of numerous partners, including the United
Nations Environment Program's DHI Centre on Water and Environment, the International
Union for Conservation of Nature, The Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute.
The guide emphasizes that green infrastructure solutions in water management can be viable and
cost-effective alternatives to gray water infrastructure, and can support goals across multiple policy
areas, including efforts to adapt to climate change.
Watershed Management
Great Lakes Restoration Action Plan Updated
In September 2014 EPA released a new Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Action Plan that
outlines the steps federal agencies will take during the next 5 years to protect water quality, control
invasive species and restore habitat in the largest freshwater surface water system in the world.
The GLRI Action Plan summarizes federal actions planned during fiscal years 2015—2019 using
GLRI funding. The actions will build on restoration and protection work carried out under the
first GLRI Action Plan, launched in 2010. GLRI resources have been used to double the acreage
enrolled in agricultural conservation programs in watersheds where phosphorus runoff contrib-
utes to harmful algal blooms in western Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay and Green Bay. So far, GLRI
resources have been used to fund more than 2,000 projects to improve water quality, to protect
and restore native habitat and species, to prevent and control invasive species, and to address other
Great Lakes environmental problems. The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force is chaired by the
EPA Administrator and includes the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the
U.S. departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland
Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, State and Transportation.
Report Highlights Need for Nutrient Monitoring in the Mississippi Watershed
In September 2014 EPA's Office of Inspector General published the results of a review of the steps
EPA and states in the Mississippi River Watershed are taking to reduce nutrients contributing to
the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. EPA is working to reduce the size of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic
zone principally by encouraging states to develop and implement nutrient reduction strategies. The
review suggests that this approach has some promising aspects that could improve local waterways.
States have developed partnerships and identified priority watersheds. At the time of the review
(early 2014), most of the states had not completed nutrient reduction strategies. In addition, few
of the states in the sample had committed to specific reduction targets or timelines. Some states
have expressed concern over their limited ability to monitor water quality and measure the progress
of the strategies. Without this information, EPA will be unable to determine the level of progress
toward achieving basin-wide pollution reduction goals. Therefore, the report recommends that the
Assistant Administrator for Water work with state and federal Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force members to develop and enhance monitoring and assessment sys-
tems that will track the environmental results of state nutrient reduction activities, including their
contribution to reducing the size of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone.
U.S. Rivers are Becoming Less Acidic
A study by the USGS revealed that several large rivers in the U.S. are less acidic because of the
decline in acid inputs including industrial waste, acid mine drainage and atmospheric deposi-
tion. The study showed that alkalinity, a measurement of a river's capacity to neutralize acid
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 21
-------
inputs, has increased over the past 65 years in 14 of the 23 rivers assessed. Reduced acidity levels
were especially common in rivers in the Northeast (e.g., the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers), the
Midwest (e.g., the Illinois and Ohio rivers), and the Great Plains (Missouri River). This study,
Long-term trends in alkalinity in large rivers of the conterminous U.S. in relation to acidification,
agriculture, and hydrologic modification, was published in the journal Science for the Total
Environment in August 2014. Information on USGS' long-term water-quality monitoring can be
accessed at the National Water Quality Assessment Program website.
Wetlands
Mississippi Wetlands Reduce Pesticides
Isolated lakes in the Mississippi Delta can be transformed into farmer-friendly landscape features
that trap agricultural pollutants. These findings by the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
can help producers control the impacts of field runoff on downstream water bodies as far south as
the Gulf of Mexico. The ARS led a series of studies that evaluated how effectively an experimental
wetland along Mississippi's Coldwater River trapped common crop pesticides. Results showed that
only 24 hours were required for pesticide concentrations near an upstream weir to drop almost
65 percent, while only trace amounts of the pesticide were detected at a downstream weir. Pesticide
concentrations became undetectable at the upstream weir 21 days later. Read more about this work
in the September 2014 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.
Other
Environmental Services Center Releases Water Resource Articles
West Virginia University's National Environmental Services Center has published three new water
resources management articles online. First, Maintaining Septic Systems Can Help Community
Residents Save Money and Protect Local Waters and Public Health describes resources and strate-
gies local officials can use to educate community residents about caring for and maintaining their
septic systems. Second, Is Design-Build the Future for the Water Sector? discusses the concept
of design-build—a technique widely used in large construction projects where one contractor is
used for both the design and construction of a project, thereby restricting responsibility to a single
entity. Finally, Managing Our Water Resources for People, the Economy and Nature: It's All
Connected provides an overview of integrated water resource management, a holistic approach to
managing water now and in the future.
Glyphosate is Widespread in U.S. Waters
USGS scientists report that glyphosate, known commercially as Round-up (Monsanto) and by
many other trade names, and its degradation product AM PA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) are
transported off-site from agricultural and urban sources and occur widely in the environment. This
study, the largest and most comprehensive assessment of the environmental occurrence of glypho-
sate and AM PA in the United States conducted to date, summarizes the results of 3,732 environ-
mental samples collected between 2001 and 2010 from 38 states. Glyphosate by itself is no more
than slightly toxic to birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates, and it exhibits relatively low oral and
dermal acute toxicity to humans. Recent studies, however, have documented the potential for other
health effects. Many studies indicate that commercial glyphosate formulations can be more toxic
than pure glyphosate due to the toxicity and/or action of additives, such as surfactants (detergents).
Most observed concentrations of glyphosate were well below existing health benchmarks and levels
of concern for humans or wildlife, and none exceeded the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level or
the Canadian short-term or long-term freshwater aquatic life standards. However, the results indi-
cate that glyphosate and AM PA frequently add to the chronic low-level exposures by plants and
animals to mixtures of pesticides and pesticide degradation products in a wide range of ecosystems
in the United States. More information about the study was provided in an article included in the
April 2014 issue of the Journal of American Water Resources. This article was one of 13 in the April
22 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
-------
issue, which focused on contaminants of emerging concern in U.S. waters. Links to abstracts for
all the articles are available on USGS' website.
New Agreement Will Reduce Copper in Motor Vehicle Brake Pads
EPA, the automotive industry and the states signed an agreement in January 2015 to reduce the
use of copper and other materials in motor vehicle brake pads. The Copper-Free Brake Initiative
calls for cutting copper in brake pads to less than 5 percent by 2021 and 0.5 percent by 2025. This
voluntary initiative also calls for cutting the amount of mercury, lead, cadmium, asbestiform fibers
and chromium-6 salts in motor vehicle brake pads. These steps will decrease runoff of these mate-
rials from roads into the nation's streams, rivers and lakes, where these materials can harm fish,
amphibians and plants. This initiative includes cooperation between entities to conduct research,
share information and promote education and outreach.
Rainwater Harvesting Academic Literature Review Available
In February 2014 the Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina
released Rainwater Harvesting: A Comprehensive Review of Literature. The report examines the
global research on rainwater harvesting and groups its findings into seven topic areas: water qual-
ity, microbial characteristics, systems modeling, reduction of potable water consumption, economic
and social aspects, stormwater management, and examples of incentive programs and legislation
that promote rainwater harvesting.
Report Highlights Land and Water Conservation Fund Project Success Stories
A report developed by the Trust for Public Land for the USDA Forest Service highlights six
unique communities across the country. It showcases how Land and Water Conservation Fund
investments have assisted local projects. Success stories highlight areas in California, New
Hampshire, South Dakota, Georgia, Montana, Washington and Oregon. For information about
Land and Water Conservation Fund-related work, read the Land Conservation Strengthens Rural
Communities: Examples of the Land and Water Conservation Fund at Work blog.
USGS Modeling Effort Improves Understanding of Dissolved Solids in U.S. Rivers
In May 2014 the USGS released Dissolved Solids Sources, Loads, Yields and Concentrations in
Streams of the Conterminous United States. Dissolved solids concentrations in water can adversely
affect the environment and agricultural, domestic, municipal and industrial water users. As a
result, the USGS' National Water Quality Assessment Program developed a SPAtially-Referenced
Regression on Watershed Attributes (SPARROW) model that has improved the understanding of
sources, loads, yields and concentrations of dissolved solids in streams of the conterminous United
States. Results show that the predominant source of dissolved solids yielded from incremental
catchments (e.g., small watersheds, typically less than 39 square miles) and delivered to local
streams is geologic materials (89 percent), road deicers (5 percent), pasture lands (3 percent), urban
lands (2 percent) and cultivated lands (1 percent). Whereas incremental catchments with dissolved
solids that originated predominantly from geologic sources or from urban lands are found across
much of the United States, those originating predominantly from road deicers are largely found in
the Northeast, and those originating predominantly from cultivated or pasture lands are largely
found in the West.
West Virginia Releases Acid Mine Drainage Watershed Manual
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection's Nonpoint Source Program recently
released a new report, Operation and Maintenance of Passive Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Systems:
A Framework for Watershed Groups. Designed for watershed groups, the report discusses the fate
of many active and passive treatment systems that were installed to address acid mine drainage.
The purpose of this report is to encourage watershed groups to develop plans for the operation and
maintenance of all their projects and to gather resources necessary to carry out those plans over the
long term.
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 23
-------
Recent and Relevant Periodical Articles
Giving North Carolina Realtors Credit for Educating Coastal Property Owners
This article, presented in the Summer 2014 issue of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's newsletter Digital Coast, describes North Carolina programs that are providing
continuing education credits for real estate agents working in coastal areas. The first training pro-
gram, Low Impact Development for Water Quality Protection, shares information about stormwa-
ter management and low impact development. The information is reinforced as participants play a
game in which they use candy as money to buy solutions for pollution reduction (e.g., conservation
easements and green roofs). Additional training is being offered on shoreline stabilization and
barrier island development, highlighting the environmental benefits of fragile coastal environments
and explaining the necessity of certain regulations and permit requirements.
Restoring the World's Largest Freshwater System
This article, presented in the October 2014 issue of the journal Stormwater, describes the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative and how it can improve and protect the environmental quality of the
Great Lakes system. The GLRI promotes collaboration between multiple U.S. states, as well as
between the United States and Canada. The article describes numerous ongoing GLRI efforts.
Scientific Report Shows Strong Connection between Wetlands, Streams, Rivers and
Estuaries
This January 2015 blog entry, written by Lek Kadeli, the Acting Assistant Administrator in EPA's
Office of Research and Development, discusses the findings of a new EPA report, Connectivity of
Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence. EPA
researchers examined more than 1,200 peer-reviewed, published scientific studies to learn how
small streams and wetlands connect to larger, downstream water bodies.
Websites Worth a Bookmark
EPA's Agriculture Website (http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/)
This site offers the latest news from EPA related to agriculture, including policy updates, the latest
research findings, announcements of awards and recognition, and availability of funding sources
and resource documents.
EPA's EnviroAtlas (http://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/)
EPA's EnviroAtlas is a Web-based interactive tool that integrates more than 300 separate data lay-
ers. The tool helps decision makers understand the implications of planning and policy decisions
on fragile ecosystems, as well as the effects on the communities who depend on goods and services
from these ecosystems. EnviroAtlas is designed for people from all levels of government, profes-
sionals, researchers, educators, non-governmental organizations and anyone interested in consider-
ing the benefits or impacts of a decision, such as siting a new road or city park.
Smart Growth Network (http://www. smartgrowth. org)
More than 40 organizations constitute the Smart Growth Network (SGN), including environmen-
tal groups, historic preservation organizations, professional organizations, developers, real estate
interests, and local and state government entities. The SGN website provides a forum for sharing
information, innovative policies, tools and ideas for ways to grow that boost the economy, protect
the environment and enhance community vitality.
24 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
-------
Calendar
March 2015
3/15-18
3/30-4/1
April 2015
4/17
4/28-29
May 2015
5/1-4
5/5-8
5/17-20
5/31-6/4
June 2015
6/1-2
6/24-27
July 2015
7/26-28
7/26-29
August 2015
8/2-6
8/5-7
September 2015
9/22-23
9/26-30
October 2015
10/5-8
10/14-15
For an updated events calendar, see www.epa.gov/nps/calendar.
American Water Works Association, Sustainable Water Management Conference, Portland, OR
American Water Resources Association Spring Specialty Conference on Water for Urban Areas: Managing
Risks and Building Resiliency, Los Angeles, CA
10th Annual Regional Stormwater Seminar—MS4 Permits: Getting Maximum Effectiveness out of
"Minimum" Measures, Atlanta, GA
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commissions 26th Annual Nonpoint Source Pollution
Conference—The Watershed Approach: Addressing Todays Challenges with an Eye on the Future,
Freeport, ME
River Rally, Santa Ana Pueblo, NM.
2015 National Mitigation & Ecosystem Banking Conference, Orlando, FL
14th National Watershed Conference: National Watershed Program Partner Summit, Fort Worth, TX
Society of Wetland Scientists 2015 Annual Meeting, Providence, RI
Grey to Green 2015: Exploring the Economics of Urban Agriculture and Resistance, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada
Association for Environmental Studies and Sciences 2015 Conference: Confronting Frontiers, Borders, and
Boundaries, San Diego, CA
Water Environment Federation's Nutrient Symposium 2015, San Jose, CA
Soil and Water Conservation Society International Annual Conference, Greensboro, NC
StormCon 2015, Austin, TX
American Society of Civil Engineers Watershed Management Symposium, Reston, VA
National Ground Water Associations Upper Great Plains Groundwater Conference, Cheyenne, WY
WEFT EC, Chicago, IL
Cities Alive: 13th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference, New York, NY
The Villanova Urban Stormwater Partnership's 9th Stormwater Management Symposium, Villanova, PA
Contribute to Nonpoint Source News-Notes
Do you have an article or idea to share? Want to ask
a question or need more information? Please contact
NPS News-Notes, c/o Don Waye, by mail at U.S. EPA,
Mail Code 4503-T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by email at waye.don
epa.gov
Join NPSINFO for More Nonpoint Source News
For ongoing NPS-related discussions and news, join EPA's free
NPSINFO electronic mailing list. Subscribers receive NPSINFO
announcements by email and may also access them online. To
join, send an email message to lyris@lists.epa.gov and include
in the subject line or the body of the message: "subscribe
NPSINFO [your first name] [your last name]".
Disclaimer of Endorsement
Nonpoint Source News-Notes is produced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with support from Ten a Tech,
I nc. Mention of commercial products, publications, or websites does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use by EPA or its contractors, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
MARCH 2015, ISSUE #97
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 25
------- |