Coastlines Summer 1994 issue


Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from issues of newsletters published
between 1994 and 2002 and these issues will not been updated since the original publication date. Users
are cautioned that information reported at the time of original publication may have become outdated.

Information About Estuaries and Near Coastal Waters
Summer 1994, Volume 4, Number 3

Table of Contents:

Articles:

•	Lead Story: Challenge for Cape Cod Wetlands

What's a marsh worth?

•	Reopening Shellfish Beds in Puget Sound

Reducing pollution pays off in clams and oysters

•	The Clean Air Act and Chesapeake Bay Water Quality

•	Ecosystems and Watersheds

An EPA perspective by Bob Way I and

•	From Marine Debris to Ecosystem Awareness

•	An Epidemiology Study for Santa Monica Bay

To swim or not to swim

•	Sustainable Futures

-------
Planning programs from Delaware to the Netherlands

Regular Departments:

Information Exchange
Publications
Calendar
Coast to Coast

o NEP News: Using Nonprofit Organizations to Advance Program Goals
o Barataria-Terrebonne NEP: Haunted Waters, Fragile Lands

About Coastlines.

-------
k
I

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from issues of newsletters published
between 1994 and 2002 and these issues will not been updated since the original publication date. Users
are cautioned that information reported at the time of original publication may have become outdated.

Challenge for Cape Cod Wetlands

What's a marsh worth?

To an ecologist, it's priceless. To an engineer, perhaps as much as $100,000 per acre in flood control
benefits. And to the average landowner, it's worthless unbuildable land.

But wait. Along comes the Challenge for the Cape Cod Wetlands, a two-year regional effort to identify
and contact every private owner of wetlands in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, with the pitch that
wetlands do have a value to landowners - as income tax deductions.

About the Challenge logo

"We wanted to do two things," said Mark H. Robinson, Executive Director of The Compact of Cape Cod

-------
Conservation Trusts (see note below about The Compact), which sponsored the project. "First, we
wanted to formally establish the fact that wetlands are crucial environmental assets with the people who
most directly affect the fate of wetlands - wetland owners. Second, we wanted to encourage them to
consider preserving wetlands through charitable donations to our non-profit land trusts. It's both and
educational effort and a land acquisition program."

Robinson reports that this non-regulatory campaign has been seen as a model for the rest of the U.S. "We
received grant funding for this project from the World Wildlife Fund, among others, because they liked
the idea that we were using grassroots (volunteer land trusts) to reach out to other grassroots
(landowners). It's not a complicated idea, but this was the first time in our region that wetland owners
were solicited in a comprehensive, systematic manner."

Results to date, midway through the second year, are impressive. About 5,000 different owners have
been contacted about the Challenge, representing more than two-thirds of Cape Cod's 64,500 acres of
fresh and saltwater wetlands. Seven public workshops have been held across the county, attended by 350
people, and 17 new gifts of wetland were generated in 1993.

"We weren't expecting a flood of gifts of land, but we think that we planted a lot of seeds in a lot of
minds. We'll get people thinking over time about donating their wetlands to our land trusts for permanent
protection," said Robinson. The response has ranged from the one-line letter from an absentee landowner
asking Robinson to draw up a deed immediately (which was done and signed), to the landowner who
kept the readable, attractive brochure sitting on top of his desk for a full year before taking action. (For
free copies of the brochure, contact The Compact.) Each of the Cape's land trusts prepared its own cover
letter on its own stationery to emphasize the local angle, further encouraging recipients to respond to the
appeal.

The Challenge employed a multi-pronged approach to get its message across. First, a targeted mailing
was prepared and distributed to identified landowners. Local tax assessors' maps were cross-referenced
with topographical maps showing wetland areas. Most town assessors were able to supply the land trusts
with mailing labels of names and addresses of landowners from tax map and parcel numbers that were
supplied to them by land trust volunteers.

The mailing not only included educational materials about wetlands, but enclosed a personal invitation to
attend wetlands workshops in the community. Well-known biologists spoke at these workshops about the
importance of wetlands as habitat, water quality filters, flood and erosion control areas, and their
significance as recreational resources. The scientific pitch was supplemented by speakers from the land
trust informing the audience of the tax advantages associated with gifts of land or conservation
easements. (See Coastlines Vol. 4, No. 2.) Attendees were also invited to subsequent wetland field
walks, led by trained naturalists, to reinforce the message that wetlands need strong protection (and to
continue to cultivate the owners' interest).

"The local media was very supportive of our efforts," Robinson said. "They seemed to like the idea that

-------
we were rallying around a theme such as wetlands protection and that it was our volunteers carrying the
message, rather than a government agency." The Cape Codder newspaper editorialized that, by offering
tax deductions for gifts of land, "...preservation and sound finance add up."

Wetland owners were targeted in the voluntary Challenge because they often feel imposed upon by
regulatory strictures. In Massachusetts, wetlands protection laws are administered by federal, state, and
town officials with overlapping jurisdictions. Wetland owners feel that they are repeatedly told by all of
these government agents what they cannot do with their land: can't fill it, can't drain it, can't pollute it,
can't develop it. The theme of the Challenge is to tell landowners what they can do with their land:
donate it to charitable conservation groups and receive tax advantages for doing so.

Landowners were informed that while gifts of wetlands do not generate tax savings as large as gifts of
buildable upland, they can still reward the donor. On Cape Cod, where salt marsh was historically
important for pasturage and fodder, and inland swamps were cleared for intensive cranberrying, most
wetlands have been carved into small lots. Therefore, many landowners could benefit from an income tax
deduction generated by a gift of wetland, if they only knew about it. Analysis of lots in the town of
Wellfleet, for instance, found that 13 percent of all parcels in the community contained at least some
wetland.

Photo by Mark Robinson

Robinson reports that the most arduous component of the Challenge strategy has been the individual
follow-up with specific landowners of priority wetland parcels. "Getting initial interest is easy; it's the
phone calls, family interviews, and general handholding with donors, guiding them through the

-------
conveyance process, that takes time, patience, and the gaining of their trust," he said. He believes,
though, that the Challenge's theme and regional scope impresses many potential donors that they are part
of a larger effort.

"Other people wonder why we are spending so much time worrying about seeking deeds and easements
on essentially unbuildable parcels like wetlands," Robinson further explained. "If you can't do anything
with wetlands anyway, why bother devoting wetlands to conservation purpose in a deed?, is a common
question. My answer is that first of all, for all of our protective regulations, we are still losing wetlands,
particularly around their edges. Owning them for conservation takes away any future temptation by
private owners to try to make 'improvements' to the wetland. Secondly, we've seen efforts at the state and
federal level in recent years to weaken wetland regulations, so what's not buildable now may become so
in the future. Finally, by consolidating wetlands into land trust and/or government ownership, we can
begin to design management plans for these critical areas in a more coherent fashion than when
ownership is fractured into tiny private pieces."

Asked if he encountered any surprises or mistakes in the Challenge's methodology, Robinson replied that
he found some people who did not know that they owned wetlands. "Some of our summer residents are
never here in the spring when the maple swamps are full of water and the peepers are out in force. By the
time they open up their cottage in July, the swamps have dried and they look like any other woodland to
the untrained ear and eye. They thanked us for telling them what they owned!"

"Also, we probably should not have advertised the fact that we could consider buying wetlands at bargain
sale prices as one of the preservation options. Some of our shrewd landowners came out of the
woodwork with no intention of making donations, but wanted top dollar for their marsh. When they
found out we didn't have that kind of funding, they quickly disappeared."

As for the immediate future, the Challenge will continue with landowner follow-up and database
refinement, and Robinson expects several more wetlands gifts by the end of the year.

Funding for the $18,000 campaign was provided through local, state, and national foundations, including
the World Wildlife Fund, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Massachusetts Bay Program, the
Sweet Water Trust, the Community Foundation of Cape Cod, Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank, and
the Edward Bangs Kelley and Elza Kelley Foundation.

For more information about the Challenge for Cape Cod Wetlands, send a self-addressed, stamped
envelope to the Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts, P.O. Box 7, Barnstable, MA 02630. NOTE:
The Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts, Inc. is a regional, non-profit service bureau serving a
coalition of 15 local land trusts and two watershed associations on Cape Cod. Founded in 1986, The
Compact represents, through its member groups, almost 8,000 households in Barnstable County and has
preserved over 2,000 acres of open space. Land trusts are non-profit conservation landholding
organizations dedicated to acquiring and managing natural and scenic areas as protected open space.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from issues of newsletters published
between 1994 and 2002 and these issues will not been updated since the original publication date. Users
are cautioned that information reported at the time of original publication may have become outdated.

Reopening Shellfish Beds in Puget
Sound

Editor's Note: In the February-March issue of Coastlines, there was a question in the Information
Exchange department asking for information regarding shellfish bed reopenings. The following article
highlights some successes in Puget. Sound. We thank the Puget Sound. National Estuary Program for
contributing information used, in the article, and. encourage others to send, related information for future
stories.

Thanks to the effort of scores of people, from public officials to fanners to homeowners to volunteers,
clam and oyster harvesting has recently been allowed again in at least four areas of Puget Sound.
Although more than 20,000 acres of Washington's commercial shellfish beds still remain closed, there
has been success in reducing pollution in some areas that had been closed for as long as 12 years.

Some of the most significant improvements have come from steps taken to reduce pollution from farm
animal wastes and failed septic systems. Farms of all sizes cover extensive areas along the Sound, and
each has several potential sources of contamination that contribute to pollution. Some of the mitigation
measures employed include covering manure piles, constructing fences along streams to keep animals

-------
out, rotating grazing areas to reduce runoff, and re-routing storm water runoff from buildings so that it
doesn't end up in surface waters. In the Burley Lagoon watershed (see accompanying map), at least 100
farmers have cooperated with the Kitsap Conservation District to make these kinds of improvements.

Also in the Burley Lagoon watershed, failed septic systems have been identified by inspectors from local
health districts, and scores have been upgraded either voluntarily or, most often, by orders forcing them
to make improvements. Inspectors have been examining up to 200 septic systems per year in the Burley
Lagoon watershed, with 150 homes and businesses having made upgrades since the mid-1980's.
"Homeowners and farmers have worked hard to improve their sewage systems, farm management
practices, and to stop the pollution that was damaging Burley Lagoon," stated Eric Slagle, an Assistant
Secretary of the Washington Department of Health. "This process required a major commitment of time
and money, and it's great to see that effort pay off."

The improvements even extend to an unusual local source of contaminants. On the tideflats of
Dosewallips State Park on Hood Canal, harbor seals had been using a stretch of beach, causing pathogen
contamination. A raft was constructed offshore for the seals to use, while the beach they had been using
was fenced off. The result was that contaminant levels dropped and the stretch of beach was reopened to
shellfishing.

New government regulations have contributed to the environmental improvements as well. An ordinance
intended to reduce impacts in sensitive wetland environments was passed in Pierce County, along with
growth management laws. Also contributing to this effort is the Puget Sound Management Plan.
According to Nancy McKay, Executive Director of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, "the
Burley project followed many elements emphasized in the Puget Sound Management Plan, including
local action with state oversight, public/private partnerships, habitat restoration, and public education and
involvement. This upgrade shows us that the plan is working, and can be used as a model for action in
watersheds elsewhere in Puget Sound."

Representative Ron Meyers, D-South Kitsap, congratulated local officials and residents for their
accomplishments in the Burley watershed at a community celebration in late 1993. "The people in this

' "-J''-11

-------
area took the environment to heart and made things better by working together to clean up the water,"
said Meyers. "Now we have something positive to show for it."

For further information, contact Sheryl Hutchison, Public Information Officer, Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, (206)407-7330.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

The Clean Air Act and Chespeake Bay
Water Quality

by Lewis C. Linker

With atmospheric nitrogen levels among the highest of any area in the country, Chesapeake Bay is an
excellent study area for a problem that affects the entire country to one degree or another. Recognizing
that excess nutrients are the primary reason for the Chesapeake Bay's decline in water quality, the
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partnership of federal, state, and local government entities signed the
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, committing to a 40 percent reduction of controllable nutrients by the
year 2000.

Using water quality models as decision- and policy-making tools to guide the cleanup and restoration, the
partnership is in the midst of an extensive effort to achieve the reduction goal and then maintain that
nutrient load as a cap for the future.

The watershed model stimulates the nutrient load from agriculture, urban lands, forests, point sources,
and atmospheric sources throughout the watershed. In a holistic approach to regional air and water
quality issues, the watershed model is linked to an estuarine model that stimulates the water quality of the

-------
Bay. Coupled to the estuarine model is a sediment model that provides simulation of sediment nutrient
sources and sinks, an ocean boundary model that stimulates the coastal input of loads under different
nutrient management scenarios, and a hydrodynamic model that stimulates tidally averaged movement of
Bay waters.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

BUy r' jVri\ .tfifir A'iUL"-j

To determine the controllable nutrient load and to evaluate the efficacy of nutrient control strategies, the
entire 64,000 square miles of the Chesapeake Bay watershed were simulated with the integrated set of
water quality models of the watershed.

The total inventory of pollutant loads includes, to a significant degree, atmospheric deposition of
nitrogen. The models were used to provide estimates of the proportion of the total delivered nitrogen load
contributed by the atmosphere for all of the major basins. Then, estimates of the reductions of
atmospheric deposition that are attributable to the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) were
made.

Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen arises from combustion processes that oxidize the normally inert
atmospheric nitrogen gas to nitrogen nutrient forms. Processes such as automobile engine combustion
and electric power generation create the nutrient form of nitrogen, chemically symbolized as NOx. This
form of nitrogen can be washed out of the atmosphere (known as wet-fall deposition) to be deposited on
land and water surfaces by rainfall. Alternately, atmospheric NOx can settle on land and water surfaces, a
process called dry-fall deposition.

Atmospheric loads of wet-fall nitrate and ammonia were input into the model from National Atmospheric
Deposition Program (NADP) sampling station data. The NADP stations, located across the country,
provide actual data for the wet-fall component and, in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the dry-fall
component is estimated to contribute an equal load.

-------
Because some of the nitrogen that falls on land acts as a fertilizer, some is denitrified (changed to
nitrogen gas by bacteria in the soil), and some is taken up by algae in water, the model is programmed to
estimate the contribution of atmospheric deposition to the actual delivered load to the Bay.

Model scenarios have determined that the reduction of delivered atmospheric nitrogen that can be
attributed to implementation of CAA amendments of 1990 is 3.3 percent of the entire nitrogen load to the
Bay. This reduction in load is significant because it will be counted over and above the point and
nonpoint source nitrogen load reductions of 19.7 percent called for in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.

Work is now underway to improve the estimates of atmospheric nitrogen reductions based on the use of
the Regional Acid Deposition Model (RADM). The RADM Model is a predictive model, while the
current data are obtained exclusively by measurements of precipitation samples. With these model
refinements, it will be possible to determine the efficacy of controlling the atmospheric sources of
nutrients and the relative costs as compared to point source and nonpoint source controls. Also, the size
of the Chesapeake Bay airshed can be determined - a key component in understanding all of the
dynamics at work in nutrient loadings to the Bay.

Applying these regional air and water quality models to the Bay area allows researchers to look at the
total inventory of nutrient loads and therefore take a holistic approach to dealing with the issue. And
because nitrogen has multiple effects on the environment by contributing to ozone depletion, acid rain,
and water pollution, understanding the intricacies of nitrogen loading dynamics has the potential to pay
big dividends in the future.

Lewis Linker is the Environmental Modeling Coordinator for the Chesapeake Bay Program. He can be
reached at (410)267-5741.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Note from Bob Wayland

Director of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

What is ecosystem protection? What is the watershed approach? How do they differ? How are they the
same? These are questions I am hearing more and more. I would like to take this opportunity to provide a
perspective from my EPA comer, and describe recent developments that should help clarify these
questions.

Let me begin with ecosystem protection. At least from EPA's perspective, we made a giant leap forward
when, on March 5, 1994, a group of assistant administrators and senior managers from EPA met in
Edgewater, Maryland, to define ecosystem protection and to discuss strategies for ensuring that EPA
programs worked to protect ecosystems. This high energy meeting, which I attended, resulted in a
proposed strategy - the Edgewater Consensus - for ecosystem protection at EPA.

The Edgewater Consensus states that ecosystem protection is place-based environment management that
is driven by the key environmental problems that occur in particular geographic areas. It relies on
stakeholders in those places to define the problems, to set priorities, and to help with the solutions. As
envisioned, such place-based environmental management would integrate the goals for long-term
ecosystem health with those for economic stability.

-------
I want to emphasize that the Edgewater group's view of ecosystems includes both human and nonhuman
living systems. We agreed that protecting human health and welfare and protecting natural systems are
integral to ecosystem management. Threats to people and natural systems from contaminated ground
water, hazardous waste disposal, and air pollution are all included in our idea of essential elements of
ecosystem protection. In the long term, sustaining healthy ecosystems will help us protect both the
human and natural environment.

Let me now turn to the watershed approach, and how it is related to ecosystem protection. I like to
describe the watershed approach as "ecosystem management within watershed boundaries." EPA's 1991
Watershed Protection Approach Framework Document states that the watershed approach provides a
framework for the development of "watershed-specific plans that prevent, reduce, or abate environmental
degradation and risks to ecological systems and public health from all stressors and all sources..." The
framework document also describes the watershed approach as dependent upon good coordination of
federal, state, tribal, and local governmental and nongovernmental programs; involvement of interested
and affected parties (stakeholders); and an iterative process whereby the problems within watersheds
would be identified, appropriate actions selected and implemented, success evaluated, and revisions
made, as needed. EPA Administrator Carol Browner has reinforced our vision for watershed
management. In congressional testimony advocating adoption of the watershed approach during Clean
Water Act reauthorization, the Administrator said "The Clinton Administration envisions an approach to
water resource protection that looks first to the ecosystem itself, evaluates its needs based on risk, and
then tailors workable solutions to those needs through the participation of stakeholders in every phase of
the process."

Of course, watershed boundaries are not always the most appropriate ones for ecosystem management.
For certain living resources or ecological concern (e.g., migratory bird flight paths), other boundaries are
more appropriate. In some cases an ecosystem may be a large geographical area (e.g., the Great Plains,
the Mississippi Delta) within which smaller watershed management projects may contribute to broader
ecosystem goals. Overall environmental objectives will determine the most appropriate "place" on which
to focus.

EPA's role in place-based management may be less influenced by the place than by the commitment,
capabilities, and concerns of the other organizations and the opportunity to complement and further them
in a team approach. As described by the Edgewater participants, the EPA role in "place-based"
environmental management will often be that of catalyst or enabler. For any given place, EPA would
establish a process for determining environmental needs and would orient its work to meet those needs.
EPA would help to define the vision, assist in convening collaborative efforts, bring to bear its expertise
and authorities, and provide financial and technical assistance. I want to stress the importance of
collaboration. EPA will not always be the lead but will frequently be a participant in an ecosystem
management project convened by another entity such as another federal agency. Successful ecosystem
management requires that all stakeholders play a role. At the federal level, a number of federal agencies
will need to work together and build on each others' expertise and program responsibilities in order to
assist locally-based efforts. In our work with watershed protection we have found these types of

-------
partnerships to be very valuable, and I am sure the same will continue to be true for ecosystem
management efforts that employ other ecosystem boundaries.

To conclude, the Edgewater Consensus reinforces and provides a further impetus for continuing our
watershed efforts. Indeed, our watershed efforts provide a foundation for achieving the vision articulated
in the Edgewater Consensus.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from issues of newsletters published
between 1994 and 2002 and these issues will not been updated since the original publication date. Users
are cautioned that information reported at the time of original publication may have become outdated.

From Marine Debris to Ecosystem
Awareness

Focusing on public/private partnerships to reduce debris generated from marine vessels, several
communities in the Gulf of Maine have begun programs to develop a comprehensive approach to collect
and dispose of waste that is typically dumped into the marine environment.

The Gulf of Maine Council has identified marine debri s reduction as a priority, and the cities of Portland
and Rockland, Maine; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; and Provincetown, Massachusetts, have begun
programs. "The main reason that this program has received priority status is because it lends itself so
well to public awareness and public involvement opportunities," said Craig Freshley, Senior Planner with
the Gulf of Maine Council. "It is very tangible to people when they see a gull strangled by plastic, or
dead fish washed up on the shore. Everybody can help by participating in shore cleanups and putting
waste oil in collection containers."

So while marine debris is not the biggest environmental issue of the Gulf, it gets the public involved.
And the hope is that as the public awareness of this program increases, it also means that overall
awareness of the Gulf of Maine as an ecosystem increases. "We have to stop throwing trash in the Gulf

-------
of Maine and respect it instead," said Freshley.

Many businesses have also gotten involved in the program. Donations of in-kind services like trash
hauling, providing dumpsters, and posting signs on piers and along the coast have been provided by local
businesses. One of Portland's largest radio stations has produced public service announcements and has
done broadcasts live from the shore during cleanup days. And even a local dairy got into the act by
donating five-gallon buckets that were used for oil collection.

For further information, contact Craig Freshley at the Gulf of Maine Council, (207)287-3261.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

An Epidemiology Study for Santa Monica

Bay

Since it began five years ago, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (SMBRP) Management
Conference has worked on many fronts to carry out its mandate to build a clean and healthy future for
Santa Monica Bay. The SMBRP has focused much of its energy on finding the answer to a fundamental
human health question; "How safe is it to swim in Santa Monica Bay?"

Over the years, a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence has been collected that points to the
existence of potential health risks linked to swimming in the Bay. Reports have been received of ear, eye,
wound and intestinal infections, skin rashes, and other more serious illnesses that have allegedly resulted
from swimming in Bay waters.

Investigations of possible sources and pathways have pointed to pathogens (enteric viruses and possibly
pathogenic bacteria) that may be carried by urban runoff through storm drains into the Bay.

The magnitude of the problem is heightened by the fact that an estimated 40 million people visit Santa

-------
Monica Bay beaches and more than 70 major storm drains empty directly into the Bay. Effluent from all
these drains washes onto beaches or into the surfzone without treatment, potentially affecting thousands
of beachgoers.

In response to public concern, SMBRP has been conducting research to establish the potential health
risks posed by urban runoff in the surfzone waters. This research involves two phases: confirming the
actual presence of human pathogens in storm water effluent; and, conducting epidemiological studies of
health effects on swimmers.

The first phase, carried out between 1989 and 1992, detected human enteric viruses at three storm drain
locations, indicating contamination of supposedly separate storm drains by human sewage. As a result of
the findings, signs have been posted near storm drain outlets on Bay beaches since 1992, cautioning
bathers to swim at least 100 yards away from flowing drains.

Photo by the SMBRP

The next step will be to conduct an epidemiological survey ("epi-study") to correlate health effects, such
as gastrointestinal illness, eye/ear/sinus infections, and skin rashes or lesions, with exposure to
stormwater runoff in the surfzone. Exposures of primary interest are pathogens. Sufficient data will also
be collected to allow a preliminary analysis of the effects of pollutants and possible interactions between
pollutants and pathogens.

The epi-study will be conducted during the summer of 1995. Surveys at selected beaches will include
asking beachgoers questions such as: "Have you been in the water at this beach? Have you experienced
any itching in your eyes, pain in your ears, burning on your skin? Have you experienced any diarrhea,
sneezing, or a sore throat?" Following the interviews, respondents will be asked about their health
condition via telephone twice over the next 12 days. Concurrent with the beachgoer survey, water
samples will be collected near storm drain outlets and analyzed for a group of indicator organisms,
including enteric viruses. Analysis of survey results will allow researchers to determine if there is a
correlation between swimming in waters contaminated by storm drains and the incidence of illness.

-------
Support for conducting the epi-study appears promising. The California State Legislature passed a bill
mandating state agencies to participate in the study, and many local cities and agencies have agreed to
provide financial and in-kind services as well. On a larger scale, the epi-study and various follow-up
actions are presented in the newly released Santa Monica Bay Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan. These actions have the specific goals of:

•	Identifying and eliminating the sources of contamination;

•	Preventing the contaminated substances from impacting human health;

•	Accurately assessing potential human health risks;

•	Effectively informing the public of potential risks; and

•	Improving the regulatory/management framework is needed.

The expectation is that, when the epi-study is concluded and follow-up actions are carried out,
researchers at the SMBRP may well be able to answer once and for all the question, "How safe is it to
swim in Santa Monica Bay?"

For further information on this study, contact Ms. Karen Caesar, Public Information Coordinator of the
SMBRP, (213)266-7569.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Sustainable Development and the Delaware Estuary Program

"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs," is how the Delaware Estuary Program (DEP) defines sustainable development.
Deciding what that definition really means and how it can be translated into action in the Estuary were
discussed at a recent forum in Philadelphia.

Forum participants agreed that there was one common theme or vision: conserving and working more
efficiently with natural resources so that we may pass on to future generations a cleaner, healthier, safer
environment; but agreeing 011 a definition of sustainable proved to be more of a challenge. The Global
Tomorrow Coalition, one of the participants, has 64 definitions of its own.

Sustainable Futures

In order to move beyond definitions, the participants developed a series of actions to be incorporated into
the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan that are designed to work towards changing
unsustainable practices, including:

-------
•	Build consensus on the environment, the economy, and community by assembling a panel of
experts to hold workshops for state and local governments, public interest groups, and the
business community;

•	Make education about sustainable development a high priority;

•	Gather and assimilate information on constraints to growth and the amount of growth the region
can sustain;

•	Identify indicators of sustainability that could be used to measure success over the next 20 years;
and

•	Use existing examples of work being done in the Estuary and urge their continuation and broad
application.

Another forum is planned for the spring of 1995 to continue working on meaningful steps towards the
integration of economic development and environmental protection at all levels of decision-making in
the Estuary.

For further information, contact James Walsh, Pennsylvania Coordinator for the DEP, Division of
Coastal Program, Department of Environmental Resources, (717)787-2529.

A Sustainable Future in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, people are taking sustainability pretty seriously - a government was voted out of
office because it didn't see the need for a fully integrated environment policy plan. A new government
was elected to make it happen.

A compact of four cooperating government ministries, industry, professional and citizen groups is now
working together to spell out the responsibilities of each sector as the nation strives to achieve the
principles and goals that have been established (see note below).

Results have been impressive - in just five years, 70 percent of the goals set for that period of time have
been met, and the plan still meets with broad support from all sectors of society.

For instance, significant acreage of reclaimed land is being allowed to revert to marshes to restore
historical wildfowl populations. Dairy farmers who have land along the banks of rivers have been given
the option of returning 15% of their land back to water in exchange for a subsidy from the Common
Market. This would help reduce the oversupply of milk in the Common Market and might eventually
involve one to two percent of the total land area of the Netherlands.

For further information, contact Steve Howard, Director of Special Projects at the New Jersey

-------
Conservation Foundation, 300 Mendham Road, Morristown, NJ 07960; (201)539-7540.

Highlights of the Plan:

•	Improve air, water, and soil pollution so that by 2010 there will be no pollution-related disease;

•	Reduce the number of automobile commuters by spending millions on more and better bikeways;

•	Prevent overall pollution from increasing, and do not reduce it in one area by worsening it in
another;

•	Put pollution abatement at the source rather than at the end;

•	Make the polluter pay;

•	Use the best available technology;

•	Motivate people to practice good environmental behavior;

•	Close "substance cycles" so that the least possible amount of material is lost between manufacture
and recycling; and

•	Conserve energy.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Coastlines Information Exchange

Update on Questions

In the February-March issue of Coastlines, we began a new feature called Information Exchange, and
printed two questions. Derek Busby, Director of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program,
asked about existing data and research methodology regarding any known cause and effect relationship
between septic discharges and estuarine water quality impacts. Peyton Fleming, Outreach Coordinator
for the Narragansett Bay Project, was looking for information related to the successful reopening of
shellfish beds after long periods of closure. (See the article "Reopening Shellfish Beds in Puget Sound"
in this issue.)

Derek and Peyton both reported that they have received several responses to their questions from people
around the country. They were surprised and very pleased at the amount of response, and are thankful to
the Coastlines readership for contributing helpful information to their respective programs.

We would like this feature to continue to grow and serve our readership as a true networking tool for
people involved in estuarine and near coastal water issues, and so we encourage your participation
(especially in the form of questions!).

-------
Thanks for your support.

Please send your questions or ideas to:

Coastlines Information Exchange
P.O. Box 7

Barnstable, MA 02630
telephone (508)362-5570;
facsimile (508)362-5335.

Please include your name, address, and daytime phone number (for verification).

Painting the Town Red

Volunteer painting crews are taking the country by storm (drains, that is) by painting messages like
"Clean Streets, Clean Beaches", or "Don't Dump, Drains to Ocean" next to storm sewers. In addition to
the Delaware Estuary and Santa Monica Bay projects described in the April-May Coastlines, many other
areas have implemented similar programs. Scout troops and other volunteers have stenciled more than
100 drains in Falmouth, Massachusetts; in addition, about 3,000 drains in Milford, Connecticut, have
been painted by the Concerned Harbor Users of Milford. The New York and Connecticut Sea Grant
programs loan stencils to groups interested in painting drains, and Save the Bay, a nonprofit organization
in Rhode Island, provides stencils with the support of a grant from the Stanley Works Foundation.
Altogether, within the past three years, an estimated 20,000 drains have been stencilled in Massachusetts
and New York alone.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Response of the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model to Loading Scenarios. (April 1994). Prepared by
the Modeling Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program and published by EPA, this document
reports the findings from the application of the integrated models to evaluating the technical aspects of
various load reduction scenarios. The report is designed to be a resource for a diverse technical and
managerial audience. Scenarios have been applied to develop the tributary loading allocations of a 40
percent reduction of controllable nitrogen and phosphorus. Other scenarios annually track the loads to
compare annual reductions with the year 2000 goal. For a copy, please contact the Chesapeake Bay
Program at 1(800)968-7229, and ask for the Communications Department, or call Kate Bennett at
(410)267-5743.

Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters, First Report to Congress. (May 1994). This report
detail the role of air deposition of toxics in the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, Chesapeake Bay, and other
U.S. coastal waters. The report is a compilation of existing information and is the first time EPA has
analyzed such information in a single document . The study is the first in a series of biennial reports that
will assess the contribution of atmospheric deposition to these waters, the environmental and public
health effects caused by the deposited pollutants, the sources of these pollutants, and the water quality
standards violations that may have resulted from deposition of air pollutants. Copies are available by

Publications

-------
calling (919)541-5648. Ask for document EPA-453/R-93-005. For further technical information, contact
Amy Vasu at (919)541-0107.

How Estuaries are Polluted. Understanding the causes of coastal contamination is the first step to finding
solutions to pollution. This eye-catching, full-color poster shows how industries, farms, residential areas,
and motor vehicles all contribute to the pollution of estuaries. The sturdy 11" by 17" poster was adapted
from a graphic by 'U.S. News and World Report' and produced by Connecticut Sea Grant in conjunction
with the Maritime Center at Norwalk. It's an excellent resource for teachers and environmental groups.
Available for $2 from Connecticut Sea Grant, University of Connecticut, 1084 Shennecosset Road,
Groton, CT 06340-6097.

Stemming the Tide of Coastal Fish Habitat Loss. ($20,258 pp., 1991). By the National Coalition for
Marine Conservation. "Stemming the Tide" is a review of the science and status of coastal fish habitat
and its importance to U.S. fisheries. This volume contains papers presented at 1991 symposium covering
critical habitat areas, major threats, critiques of federal environmental law, and an agenda for
strengthening our national habitat conservation program. Available from the National Coalition for
Marine Conservation, 3 North King Street, Leesburg, VA, 20176. Please add $1.00 for shipping.

Toward a Watershed Approach: A Framework for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Protection, and
Management. (22 pp., January 1994). This Coastal America publication answers the question: What is a
watershed? How do we affect watersheds and their living resources? What is being done now to protect
and restore natural resources on a watershed level? How can this restoration and protection be done more
effectively? and, What can individuals do to protect their watershed? Available free of charge from the
Coastal America Office, (202)482-5483; fax (202)482-0714.

Geochemical Techniques for Identifying Sources of Ground-Water Salinization. ($59.95, 272 pp., 1993).
By Bernd C. Richter, Charles W. Kreitler, and Bert E. Bledsoe. This book offers a comprehensive look at
the threat to the U.S.' freshwater resources due to salinization and outlines techniques that can be used to
study the problem. Some of the topics covered are: the seven major salt water sources that commonly
mix and deteriorate our fresh ground water, characteristics of saltwater sources, geochemical parameters,
and basic graphical and statistical methods that are frequently used in saltwater studies. Available from
CRC Press, 1(800)272-7737; fax 1(800)374-3401.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

July 31 - August 4

National Association of Counties 59th Annual Conference. Bully's Casino & Resort, Las Vegas,
Nevada. The conference provides five days of workshops, activities, and presentations on critical
county issues from unfunded mandates to reclaiming wastewater to growth management and
environmental regulations. One of the workshops, entitled "Counties Managing Coastal
Watersheds", will be moderated by Nancy McKay, Executive Director of Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority. For information, contact Horatio Gavilan, conference coordinator, (202)942-

August 17 -19

Environmental Issues Affecting the Forestry and Forest Products Industries of the Eastern U.S.
To be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel on Baltimore's Inner Harbor. The conference will provide a
forum for leaders in industry, government, the environmental community, academia, and private
landowners to discuss a myriad of environmental issues affecting today's forestry and forest
products industries in the Eastern U.S. Featured speaker will be Vice President A1 Gore.

Sponsored by the Carolinas - Chesapeake Section of the Forest Products Society and Virginia

Calendar of Events

4220.

-------
Tech. For additional information, contact J. Daniel Dolan, (703)231-8839, or Angela Riegel,
(703)231-7107.

September 7-9

Celebrating the Year of the Coast: Innovations in Coastal Management. Wilmington Hilton,
Wilmington, North Carolina. Designed for a broad national audience, this conference will feature
Governor Hunt, plenary speakers, presentation sessions, field trips, and exhibits, and will facilitate
a dialogue between all major participants in coastal resource management. As we approach
reauthorization of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the conference will help develop
new management strategies for the protection of estuaries, barrier islands, wetlands, and other
critical natural habitats. For further information, contact Allison L. Ballard at Jordan McColl, Inc.,
(910)762-6711, or (800)258-6711.

September 7-10

Citizens Advisory Committees Workshop. Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. The meeting
is designed for and by Citizens Advisory Committees (CACs), with an orientation toward solving
the real world problems that National Estuary Programs and CACs are confronting. The proposed
format is a mix of presentation and discussion. CAC chairs of vice chairs and public outreach
coordinators are the target audiences for the workshop. For further information, please contact
Ms. Fran Flanigan at the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, (410)377-6270; fax(410)377-7144.

-------
Infer vt at ion jftft1

d JNfrCoastal Waters

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Using Non-profit Organizations to
Advance Estuary Program Goals

The goal of every National Estuary Program (NEP) is to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) that outlines strategies for protecting, remediating, and conserving an
estuary's natural resources.

For CCMP implementation, programs are expected to seek funding under Titles II and VI and Section
319 of the Clean Water Act, and, most importantly, from state and local governments and other public
and private partners. To help identify funding sources for implementation, U.S. EPA's Oceans and
Coastal Protection Division has published a document entitled "Using Nonprofit Organizations to
Advance Estuary Program Goals." The report includes information on specific types of Nonprofit
Organizations (NPOs) and how they can attract and disburse funds. Also addressed are the roles of
institutions already involved in estuary programs.

NPOs are defined as organizations that accrue no profits to their individual members but expend
resources in pursuit of a particular purpose. They are divided into five basic types that vary considerably
in their ability to act as a conduit of funds and in the activities that they can undertake. The five include:

-------
•	state agencies and departments;

•	special purpose government institutions;

•	interstate trust funds;

•	private foundations; and

•	public charities.

NPOs can access funds from both the private and public sectors, disburse funds for implementation
activities, and undertake estuary-related activities themselves.

The EPA document highlights issues that must be resolved before an estuary program can establish an
NPO, and provides a list of references for further information. It also briefly studies eight organizations
as examples of operating practices, and examines the advantages and limitations of each in advancing
environmental program goals.

To obtain a free copy of this report, write to NCEPI, 11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5, Cincinnati, OH
45242. Ask for document EPA 842-B-093-008.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from issues of newsletters published
between 1994 and 2002 and these issues will not been updated, since the original publication date. Users
are cautioned that information reported at the time of original publication may have become outdated.

Haunted Waters, Fragile Lands

Haunted Waters, Fragile Lands, Oh What Tales to Tell!, a one- hour videotape documentary by the
Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program, lEMTdisL-ijinu-r^ breaks new ground by taking a cultural
geographer's approach to ecology and a storyteller's view of the environment. The documentary
introduces the varied ecosystem of Barataria-Terrebonne, Louisiana, through interview clips, wildlife
photography, visits to local landmarks, and archival images that conjure up the region's past. Video
graphics and computer imagery help explain concepts like delta formation, natural levees, and backwater
swamps.

Viewers will experience first-hand how life was lived on sugar cane plantations, in trappers' cabins, and
on shrimp-drying platfonns. The centerpiece of the documentary tells how 100 years ago in Barataria
Bay, a diverse mix of ethnic groups lived on stilt villages (a Filipino architectural legacy) that were built
of cypress and palmetto (a Native American building material) and sailed in luggers (a boat type
imported by the French). In summer they fished shrimp and dried them using ancient techniques of the
Chinese among them, and in winter harvested oysters as Croatians living there taught them.

-------
The essence of that cooperative, neighborly spirit highlights a concluding look at the troubles besetting
the Barataria- Terrebonne ecosystem today and the path citizens must take to solve them. For national
audiences, the documentary uses Barataria-Terrebonne as a case study to examine the historical issues
that affect current discussions of wetlands policy, and to provide an exemplary introduction to the field
of historical ecology.

"This is a unique and fascinating region," said Executive Producer Lynn Woods, "but it's an ecosystem
under stress. We hope that by looking back and analyzing how people changed this area, we can set the
stage for addressing the environmental problems we face today. Those early immigrants ... all had to deal
with how to draw a living from these fragile lands without destroying those lands. It's the same issue
we're wrestling with today."

Haunted Waters, Fragile Lands, Oh What Tales to Tell! was produced for the Barataria-Terrebonne
National Estuary Program |i:\i i tiixi.iaiim.-r>! m association with the Louisiana Nature and Science Center.

Funding was provided by U.S. EPA, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, and the
Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities. For more information, contact Ms. Lynn Woods (504)447-
0868; fax (504)447-0870.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from issues of newsletters published
between 1994 and 2002 and these issues will not been updated since the original publication date. Users
are cautioned that information reported at the time of original publication may have become outdated.

About Coastlines

Coastlines is a publication of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. It is produced in cooperation
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, under
grant #CX-816-857-913. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies
of EPA, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsements or
recommendations of use.

The Executive Director of the Alliance is Frances H. Flanigan. To make address changes, additions or
comments, please write to the Alliance at 6600 York Road, Baltimore, MD 21212.

-------
Infer vt at ion jftft1

d JNfrCoastal Waters

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from issues of newsletters published
between 1994 and 2002 and these issues will not been updated since the original publication date. Users
are cautioned that information reported at the time of original publication may have become outdated.

About the Challenge Logo

This bold, attractive logo was designed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be loaned out free of
charge for local groups wishing to use it. It served as the unifying logo for the Challenge, appearing on
its brochures, invitations, and press releases.

-------

-------


SusL|ui'li;inii;i Rh'cr

I'otomac R iver



Rappahannock/
York River

Western Shore

Eastern Shore

rf/ // ////A/////

p*

Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Major Basins

\£s

-------
- - '1

Chesapeake Bay Water
Quality Model

Sediment
Model



OceHn
Boundary
Model



c

Hydrodynamic
Model

Chesapeake Bay Integrated Water
Quality Models

-------