United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
April 1992
#20
News-Notes
The Condition of the Environment and The Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
A Commentary . . .
Reflections on The Chesapeake Bay Program — April 1992
One of the wonderful things about the Chesapeake Bay Program is that it has a long,
established track record of constantly renewing itself. The Program is not in a rut. It keeps
learning, adjusting and improving. In the process, we're all being educated about what it is
going to take to rescue, redirect and reestablish a major natural resource that was literally on
its deathbed a scant sixteen years ago. At that time, Congress, under legislation sponsored by
Maryland's Senator Charles Mathias, initially directed EPA to assess Bay water quality and to
make recommendations to improve its management.
The latest evidence of renewal is the publication in February 1992 of the Progress Report of the
Baywide Nutrient Reduction Reevaluation, that re-examines the year 2000 goal of 40 percent
nutrient reduction set in 1987.
The political science of the Chesapeake Bay Program is remarkable, involving as it does a
decision-making process composed of the executive and legislative branches of three
sovereign states and the District of Columbia, in partnership with the federal government's
Environmental Protection Agency. Numerous other federal agencies are also involved. This
process is critically and regularly observed by the United States Congress. When you add to all
of this a watchful and creative citizens' involvement in all of the jurisdictions, you can
understand that the Chesapeake Bay Program is as thoroughly open a process as a downtown
department store window.
It has to be that way. After more than 250 years of exploitation and no baywide public policy,
finally in 1976, there were the first beginnings of official public concern about the condition of
the Bay as a system. Today, there is public policy and public action. And that public policy is
continuing to evolve as understanding evolves and matures.
There are hundreds and thousands of similar long-abused natural systems around the country.
Major restoration efforts will take a long, long time, lots of patience, and the continuing
application of creative political science and resources.
But for the hundreds and thousands of us who want to restore the nation's incredible, but
abused, natural assets, we are thankful for the leadership and the experiences that is being
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
Commentary
Reflections on The Chesapeake Bay Program — April 1992 1
Noteworthy Intergovernmental Happenings
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring 2
USGS & EPA Sign Monitoring Memo of Understanding 3
Forest Service and EPA Meet For Sediment Workshop 5
Notes on The Coastal Environment
Barrier Island Restoration & Coastal Wetland Creation 5
Dredge Spoil Used to Restore Whooping Crane Habitat 7
NPS from Treated Wood Structures 9
Notes on Local Riparian & Watershed
Management
BLM Proclaims Federal Lands Riparian-Wetlands Initiative 11
California's Tomki Watershed Project in Eleventh Year 12
In New Jersey, Wildflowers Clean Up NPS Pollution 14
Austin Voters Place Nonpoint Source Prevention On May Ballot ... 14
McKnight Foundation Initiates Restoration of Mississippi River 16
Report Documents Insults To The Missisippi River 17
Lake County, Ohio Tackles Phosphorus Reduction To Lake Erie 18
Integration of Water Quality Programs Urged by EPA 19
NPS Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) News
NPS Bulletin Board Goes Esoteric! 19
Watershed Restoration Network 20
Fish Consumption Advisory SIG Reopens 21
Right on, Kansas! A BBS First 22
Video Review
Drinking Water Video Now Available 22
ANNOUNCEMENTS 23
DATEBOOK 24
THE COUPON 27
-------
shared out of the Chesapeake Bay Program. We'll get there sooner because of these pioneering
efforts.
The Chesapeake Bay Program progress report is a fine technical overview dealing with what is
involved in nutrient reduction and habitat restoration of the countless ecosystems that make
up the Chesapeake Bay. The report is concerned with restoration of the Bay's living resources.
It is worth reading.
[For copies of the report write to: Chesapeake Bay Program, 410 Severn Ave., Suite 109, Annapolis, MD
21403.]
Noteworthy Intergovernmental Happenings
Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality Established
The newly formed Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) held its
first meeting January 29-30 of this year, in Alexandria, Virginia. The ITFM grew from a joint
concern of USGS and EPA staff that water resource monitoring did not produce the data
needed for many management decisions. The agencies felt that existing functions could in
some cases be conducted more efficiently and with better coordination among the many
federal, state, local, and private entities that perform monitoring. A new directive by the Office
of Management and Budget to report on needed improvements in the nation's water quality
monitoring activities by December 10,1992, gave added impetus to the Task Force.
Chaired by EPA, with the vice-chair from USGS, the 16-person task force is composed of
representatives from the following federal agencies: NOAA, COE, USD A, DOE, FWS, OMB,1
and one representative each from seven states and one interstate organization, all from
different geographical regions of the country.
Statements outlining ITFM's basic mission and scope were adopted at the meeting:
J ITFM MISSION
In general, the mission of the ITFM is to develop an intergovernmental strategic
plan for acquiring, managing, and presenting water quality information for
decision-making. To the extent possible within the time and resources available,
the ITFM will initiate implementation of some recommendations as well. Preparing
the strategy requires developing a framework to:
¦ Integrate monitoring efforts.
a Use resources more effectively.
m Obtain comparable data and consistent reporting of status and trends
of water quality.
SCOPE OF ITFM
The scope of the ITFM includes water-quality monitoring and the resulting
collection, management, and use of water quality information for the purposes of:
¦ Developing management and regulatory programs,
m Identifying emerging problems.
u Evaluating program effectiveness and compliance.
¦ Assessing status and trends.
m Wisely managing the use of environmental and economic resources.
As noted, by December 1992, the ITFM is to submit a report of recommendations to OMB
based on a nationwide review and evaluation of water quality monitoring activities. Within
three years, it is to file a final report documenting its conclusions, recommendations, and
implementation plan.
1 Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Management and Budget.
Reflections on The
Chesapeake Bay
Program —April 1992
(continued)
2
-------
Intergovernmental
Task Force on
Monitoring Water
Quality Established
(continued)
At the organizational meeting, the task force set up four task groups, each with specific
assignments and suggested products. The first of these is the Intergovernmental Framework
Task Group, chaired by Bruce Baker, Director, Water Resources Management Bureau of
Wisconsin. The task group's objective is "to better integrate diverse monitoring efforts
nationwide."
Suggested products include:
¦ Information on organizations and water quality monitoring programs in the U.S.
¦ The questions national water resource monitoring must answer
¦ A conceptual model of a prototype monitoring program
¦ A strategic plan for an intergovernmental framework for improving the efficiency of
existing programs and meeting defined information needs
The second is the Environmental Indicators Task Group, chaired by Lawrence Pugh, Director,
National Ocean Pollution Program Staff, NOAA. The task group's objectives are "to
recommend application of environmental indicators and standard descriptors of aquatic
conditions which all agencies can use to measure and report national water quality conditions,
trends and progress toward National goals, and also to recommend a process to improve
reporting of the indicators over time."
The first year goals of this task group are:
¦ Outline the questions indicators must answer
¦ Outline existing indicator programs of agencies and groups
¦ Develop indicator selection criteria and protocols
¦ Identify gaps in existing knowledge
The third group is called the Data Collection Methods Task Group. The chair is Charles
Facemire, Division of Environmental Contaminants, FWS. Its objective is "to develop a plan
that will permit collecting and qualifying environmental data to allow merger of data from
multiple sources into definable data sets to address varied needs of the user-community."
The final task group will deal with data management and information-sharing. The chair is
Peter Rogers, Chief, Office of Drinking Water, California Department of Health Services. Its
objective is "to develop mechanisms, consensus standards and quality assurance procedures to
permit sharing of environmental data at defined levels of confidence from multiple sources."
Elizabeth Jester, Chief of EPA's Monitoring Branch, Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division, has been named overall ITFM chair. She made these comments to News-Notes
concerning the mission of the group:
Monitoring is complex, and coordination among the many entities involved is a tremendous
task. I'm pleased that the initial meetings of the full ITFM and four task groups have been
able to prioritize the issues and outline specific products that will carry us to realistic
monitoring goals.
We need a common language and framework for action that will allow each individual
monitoring agency to take advantage of the efforts of others, share its own products and
enable us all to answer the basic questions — how healthy are our water resources and how
well are our water management programs doing.
[For more information, contact: Elizabeth Jester, Chief, Monitoring Branch (WH-553), EPA, 401 M Street
Slty Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (FTS/202) 260-7066. Or Nancy Lopez, Chief, Office of Water Data
Coordination, USGS, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 22092. Phone: (703) 648-5014.]
USGS & EPA Sign Formal Memorandum of Understanding
To Coordinate Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
On January 15,1992, Lajuana S. Wilcher, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water and Erich W.
Bretthauer, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development (ORD), both on
behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Dallas L. Peck, Director, U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) pledging cooperation and
collaboration on water quality monitoring and assessment activities.The MOU grew from a
meeting between EPA (ORD Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program [EMAP] and
Office of Water's Monitoring Branch) and USGS's National Water Quality Assessment
Program (NAWQA). Participants agreed that these programs need to closely coordinate their
activities.
3
-------
The Memorandum recites the respective missions of the two agencies that establish the need
for their individual water quality monitoring and assessment operations:
The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey is to provide earth-science information needed to
guide the wise use and management of the nation's mineral, energy, and water resources. The
mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to improve and preserve the quality of the
environment and to protect human health and the biological integrity of natural resources on
which all human activity depends.
Elizabeth Jester, Chief of EPA's Monitoring Branch, commented on the new MOU:
We feel it is imperative to coordinate EMAP, NAWQA and OWOW's monitoring programs,
particularly in areas of biological protocols, landscape characterization, quality
assurance/quality control, and data storage and retrieval.
We are working with USGS, seven other federal agencies, and states on the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) to accomplish similar
aims, but that's longer range. This agreement is in effect now and will guide our present
activities. We look forward to closely coordinated work on common aims.
The scope of work detailed in the agreement spells out an eight-point approach to planned
collaboration:
As the combination of programs in EPA and USGS are more beneficial to the public interest
than any one program alone, it is mutually agreed upon that collaboration between USGS
and EPA programs will include:
¦ Participation on program advisory committees that will be convened to make
recommendations on:
(1) Information needed to address existing and emerging resource issues of regional and!or
national concern.
(2) Aspects of the design of environmental assessment programs including environmental
indicators and consistent minimum data sets, field and laboratory methods, monitoring
guidelines and protocols, acquisition of land use and land cover data, quality-assurance
procedures, and information management and accessibility.
¦ Coordination of methods development and methods testing activities for the field, laboratory,
and interpretive aspects of environmental assessment programs.
¦ Coordination of monitoring guidelines and protocols each agency may issue for specific
resource areas (e.g., lakes, streams, and groundwater) or ecological health (e.g., community
and population monitoring).
¦ Joint development and implementation of efforts to provide and/or improve key supporting
data needed by both agencies for assessment purposes. Examples of databases that may be
considered include biology, land use and land cover, point source discharges, and fertilizer
and pesticide use.
¦ Participation in the planning, conduct, and reporting of efforts focused on regional and
national synthesis of information for environmental assessment programs.
¦ Coordination of quality assurance/quality control activities.
¦ Coordination of data acquisition, storage and retrieval for both primary and secondary data
users.
¦ Development of joint assessment reports.
In his letter transmitting the signed agreement to EPA, USGS Director Dallas Peck commented:
Both of our agencies have large and complimentary water quality efforts underway that are
needed to fulfill our missions and responsibilities to the public and private sectors. There is
much work to be done and many common areas of interest where collaboration will be
mutually beneficial. We look forward to substantive progress in implementing this agreement.
[For further information, contact Hal Kibby, EMAP, Environmental Research Laboratory, 200 S. W. 35th St.,
Corvallis, OR 97333. Phone: (503) 757-4679: Elizabeth Jester, OWOW(WH-553) U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (FTS/202) 260-7066; or Bill Wilber, USGS, NAWQA, 122-02 Sunrise Valley
Drive, Reston, VA 22092. Phone: (703) 648-6878.]
-------
Forest Service and EPA Meet
For Technical Workshop on Sediment
On February 3-7,1992, the Forest Service and EPA held a joint technical workshop in Corvallis,
Oregon on sediment and water quality. This meeting was prompted by the increased and
widespread recognition of "clean sediment" as a nonpoint source pollutant of significant
ecological concern. Both agencies have increased their focus on the potential impacts of
sediment production from forest management activities on water quality and aquatic life.
Most notably, there have been increased efforts to understand the influences of forest
management activities on impairment of salmonid habitat by sediment. (See NPS News-Notes
issue #17, December, 1991 review of American Fisheries Society publication Influences of Forest
And Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats.) In response to these trends,
EPA and the Forest Service are examining how these problems should be addressed under the
Clean Water Act (particularly the TMDL process) and the technical basis for making water
quality management decisions.
The Corvallis sediment workshop focused on the technical information and methodologies
currently available that might be brought to bear on this subject. Workshop participants
explored the development of a joint research program to investigate the impacts of
sedimentation related to silvicultural activities on water quality.
Through an Memorandum of Understanding, the EPA and Forest Service have undertaken
cooperative efforts on a number of programs and technical projects related to water quality. As
an extension of these cooperative efforts, the workshop brought together the combined
expertise of over 50 research scientists and water resource management specialists to address a
subject of common concern.
The main objectives of the workshop were to review the results of existing research and to
build on these previous efforts by identifying opportunities for technology transfer of existing
tools and information and developing a research agenda that identifies needed research
projects. The workshop featured panel discussions and workgroup sessions in four areas:
(1) sediment production and transport processes from forest uses, (2) land and riparian zone
interactions with sediment, (3) sediment production by activities related to forest uses, (4)
sediment impacts on fish and other aquatic populations.
The purpose of the panels was to develop a partial summary of what is known today
regarding forest sediment issues. Several papers were presented on the state of the science and
current research. Breakout sessions built on these topics as the workgroups attempted to
determine knowledge gaps and identify areas for potential research. They also addressed
technology transfer opportunities.
Based on these efforts, the Forest Service and EPA are working toward the development of an
interagency agreement that will serve as an action plan for technology transfer and
cooperative research developed as a result of the workshop. The action plan will be based on
an improved understanding of the existing knowledge and the identification and development
of additional research projects involving sedimentation processes and effects on water quality.
This effort is intended to allow input from program and management branches of EPA and the
Forest Service on the needs for research to support program activities. A preliminary research
agreement tentatively identifies these needs, which include criteria for determining attainment
of designated uses, tools for monitoring and modeling, and BMP effectiveness information.
The proceedings document for the Corvallis sediment workshop is now being prepared. It will
include the papers, highlights of each panel discussion, and the reports developed by the four
workgroups. Availability of this report will be announced in News-Notes.
[Questions on the workshop or the follow-up projects can be addressed to Don Brady at (FTS/202)
260-5392 or John Cannell at (FTS/202) 260-7087.]
Notes on The Coastal Environment
Barrier Island Restoration & Coastal Wetland Creation On A Large Scale
editor's note: This article was written by one of our regular contributors, Susan Alexander of Region 6,
currently on detail to the Terrene Institute.
Can a small system of barrier islands that serves as a vital protective buffer to miles of
Louisiana coastal wetlands be restored? They are part of a chain of islands that the U.S.
Geological Survey and the Louisiana Geological Survey estimate will be submerged by the
5
-------
Barrier Island
Restoration &
Coastal Wetland
Creation On A
Large Scale
(continued)
year 2020. The rapid erosion of the islands' shorelines is a result of a combination of natural
and human forces—most notably drilling, oil and gas exploration, and hydrologic
modification.
In one of the most ambitious and creative projects to be implemented under the new Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (part of PL 101-646), EPA, in cooperation
with the state of Louisiana and the Terrebonne Parish consolidated government, will use
dredged sediment to actually rebuild the two-mile-long Eastern Isle Dernieres and create at
least 105 acres of new saline marsh.
The scale of this project is what sets it apart from previous beneficial-use-of-sediment projects,
which generally have been constructed on small acreage. This project employs an integrated
ecosystems approach to complete island restoration. Overwash sediments will be used to
build up dunes to an eight-foot height on the seaward side of the island. An earthen retaining
structure will be constructed on the leeward side. The dunes will be planted with native
vegetation. These actions will seal all breaches along the two-mile stretch and will fill all
man-made canals, which are contributing to the rapid loss of the islands.
Sediment from the bay behind the retaining structure will then be suction-dredged and used to
hydraulically fill the area between the dunes and the earthen retaining structure. This area will
be planted with native brackish marsh plant species and is expected to provide additional
wildlife and fisheries habitat.
The progress of the restoration effort will be monitored in a variety of ways, including
measurements of both the quality and the quantity of soil, vegetation, sediment, water, and
fish and wildlife before, during and after the project. The project will be a success if a stable
island environment supporting a variety of native plants, animals and aquatic organisms is
reestablished. It is hoped that it will protect the adjacent coastal wetlands for the next 30 years.
At a cost of $6,345,000, it is the third largest project to be funded from the $50 million the 1991
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act budget. These funds come from an
18 percent "set-aside" or transfer from the federal Sport Fish Restoration Fund, which is
supported through small engine fuel taxes. The Act allocates 70 percent ($34 million in FY 91)
of this amount to be administered by the Corps of Engineers for use by the task force created
by the Restoration Act. This task force directs priorities and selects projects for coastal
wetlands protection.
Michael Mielke, executive director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and the
chairman of the Citizens' Participation Group of the task force explains,
Our approach is three-phased: 1) implement relatively small scale projects that can be completed
in the short term and offer the greatest potential return on investment, 2) concurrently develop
a comprehensive plan with a long-term focus on achieving equilibrium in gains and losses of
coastal wetlands, 3) execute the comprehensive plan and in so doing shift from short-term
isolated actions to a long-term integrated approach.
In effect, our intention is to take advantage of the best opportunities available today to
implement a delaying action (phase one) while we are developing a comprehensive plan (phase
two) for sustained long-term action (phase three).
The first projects from the priority list include:
¦ marsh building with sediments from river water diversion
¦ water management
¦ hydrologic restoration
¦ marsh building with dredged sediments
¦ shoreline erosion control using vegetative or structural methods
¦ barrier island restoration with dredged sediment (the Eastern Isle Dernieres project).
Each project has an agency sponsor (from those agencies represented on the task force) and a
local sponsor. Designated (by the Act) members of the task force include: the U.S. Department
of the Army, the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the USD A, the U.S. Department
of Interior, and the state of Louisiana.
Norm Thomas, chief of EPA Region 6 Federal Activities Branch and long time advocate of
increased "on-the-ground" implementation of coastal wetlands protection measures, summed
up the opportunities presented by this legislation well:
With cooperative efforts of local, state, and federal governments and the public, we now have a
rare opportunity to achieve coastal wetlands protection and restoration immediately by
-------
Barrier Island implementing the yearly priority projects. For the longer term, coastal wetland protection and
Restoration & restoration will occur through the development and implementation of the Comprehensive
Coastal Wetland Restoration Plan. Success of these efforts will be measured in two ways: first by the benefits of
Creation On A our initial restoration and protection projects located in critical areas, and second, by what is
Large Scale hopefully, a continuing policy and financial commitment from Congress to maintain and
(continued) restore our wetland resources.
[For more information, contact Michael Mielke, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, (504) 764-8394.]
Dredge Spoil Used to Restore Whooping Crane Habitat
When 60 whooping cranes returned to their winter home in Aransas National Wildlife refuge
last fall, they found a bit more home than they had left the previous spring. Thirteen brand
new acres of marshland had sprung up in Mesquite Bay, thanks to a cooperative effort of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Texas
General Land Office, EPA Region 6, Texas Parks and Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), and Mitchell Energy and Development Corporation.
The project actually began not with the endangered whooping cranes but with the practical
question of what to do with 130,000 cubic yards of bay bottom. Mitchell Energy proposed to
maintenance dredge existing channels between the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)1 and
three oil wells. To get a permit to maintenance dredge the channel through critical crane
habitat, Mitchell had to have a plan for disposal of the spoil material. The designated COE
areas for dredge dumping on the refuge are quickly nearing capacity. In the Mesquite Bay area,
any other convenient sites are likely to be off-limits because they are whooping crane habitat
or wetlands. Hauling the material away could have cost up to $2.5 million.
So how do the whooping cranes figure into all this? Whooping cranes are never far from
anyone's mind in Mesquite Bay. The population numbered a precarious 15 in 1941 and the
whooping crane was one of the first species to come under the Endangered Species Act of
1966. Whooping crane numbers are now steadily increasing. But according to refuge biologist
Tom Stehn, as the crane population has expanded, its habitat has shrunk. In the refuge alone,
which is the winter home of the world's only wild breeding flock of whooping cranes, two to
four acres of their habitat is lost every year to erosion, mostly from the wakes of boats and
barges. Stehn figures that since construction of the GIWW half a century ago, the cranes have
lost 1,485 acres of habitat in the 54,829-acre refuge.
That habitat consisted largely of shallow, vegetated marshes and tidal pools that nurture the
invertebrates whooping cranes eat. As a trial project on beneficial use of dredge material, it
was decided to use the material from the Mitchell project to replace some of this lost
marshland. Working with the six agencies, Mitchell Energy's environmental engineering
manager, David Templet, developed a detailed plan for building an artificial marsh.
According to COE's Bob Hamerick, the wetland enhancement project is located in an area of
extremely eroded shoreline on the bayward side of Bludworth Island. In addition to providing
high quality whooping crane habitat, the island's shoreline buffers the GIWW from the
eroding waves of the open bay. Hamerick predicted that without mitigation, crucial sections of
Bludworth Island would be lost within five to ten years.
Mitchell Energy's plan was extensively reviewed by biologists from the cooperating agencies
and the refuge before being approved by the COE. The work was authorized under Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and CWA Section 404. The approved plans defined the
dimensions and exact location of the marsh and specified vegetation types to be planted. It
also called for Mitchell Energy to monitor the project for three years and submit annual reports
to the COE. Another condition, one common in permits issued for Mesquite Bay, is that work
is only to be done from April to October, while the big birds are on their Canadian breeding
grounds.
The project, for which Mitchell Energy has footed the entire $750,000 bill, entailed using
bottom soil from the site to build a rectangular levee to contain the dredge material.
Interlocking concrete blocs were placed on the outside to protect the levee from erosion. The
created marsh has both low and high areas that cause subtle differences in habitat and add to
the wetland's diversity. In the spring, approximately half of the area will be planted with
Spartina alterniflora. Sixteen percent of the area will be planted with intermediate-to-high
1 The GIWW runs right through the refuge. It widens three feet a year, because of erosion from the wakes of boats and barges. When
completed in 1941, it was 265 feet across at the surface. It is now more than 500 feet wide.
7
-------
marsh species like Batis, Salicornia, Disticlis, Spartina patens and other species common to the
area. The remaining 36 percent will be open water habitat, where seagrasses will be planted.
So who benefits from the project? The whooping cranes gained about 13 acres of habitat. The
USFWS is happy if the whooping cranes are happy. Mitchell Energy saved over $1.75 million.
The COE gained a buffer against the eroding wave action that threatened to breach Bludworth
Island and swamp the GIWW with sediment. Even the NMFS, reluctant at first to lose open
water habitat, gave the project its blessing after incorporating specific designs that benefit
marine organisms as well as cranes.
The NMFS specified that breaks be cut in the levee surrounding the marsh to ensure the tidal
exchange that allows detritus from decaying marsh vegetation to enter the food chain in the
bay.
"We had some pretty tough demands," said Stehn. "We wanted the levees protected from
erosion, and we ended up asking Mitchell for three or four times the amount of protection we
originally demanded. Also, it would have been a lot cheaper to butt the marsh up against
Bludworth Island. But whooping cranes often feed in that area. So the marsh was built about
300 feet away."
It was, according to Stehn, "pretty close to a miracle to get all the agencies to agree to this
project. It was hard to work out because USFWS and NMFS don't want dumping in the open
bay. They finally allowed it because it was mitigation for the whooping crane habitat that has
been lost over the years."
The gradual loss of habitat makes a subtle yet important difference. Stehn explained: "When
food supply is reduced, there's only so much food to go around. You don't find dead birds, but
the birds' reproductive fitness is reduced. That makes a difference in the wild population.
These birds are still struggling. There are only 131 in the wild. That's pretty rare. Last year is
the first time in a long time that we've actually gained whooping crane habitat."
Overall success of the project will be determined by a census of whooping cranes using the
artificial marsh. Ken Schwent, assistant manager at Aransas, said, "We hope it turns out to
beneficial. It'll take a few years to see because the vegetation needs to get established."
And Stehn pointed out, "Even this early in the project we're seeing that habitat has been
enhanced; the strip of bay between the island and marsh is now protected from wave action
that previously prevented seagrass from growing. The seagrass zone has expanded
dramatically."
Tied in with the original permit is Phase 2, planned for 1993 when Mitchell will need to do
further dredging. Phase 2 is the construction of a second marsh. It will be similar in cost,
design and size to the first one.
Both the refuge and the COE foresee more projects like this one in the bay. USFWS's Stehn
said, "Hopefully, COE will be doing replacement until we've regained all the wetlands lost to
the GIWW. However, there is no guarantee that the COE will do this or be allowed to do it.
Only time will tell."
Although in Aransas a particular set of circumstances allowed this project to address both
habitat mitigation and dredge dumping issues at once, this is no cure-all. Hamerick noted that
not all dredge material is suitable; in this case, the material was a sandy clay soil that stays in
place—a silty soil would not have worked. Additionally, according to USFWS Fisheries
Biologist Mary Ellen Vega, "The USFWS, as well as the other resource agencies, consistently
recommends that open bay disposal of dredge material not be allowed. The disposal of dredge
material into aquatic areas has numerous detrimental effects on the aquatic ecosystem,
particularly if seagrasses are present. The project is considered an experimental stop-gap
measure until a more environmentally sustainable solution to the erosion problem along the
GIWW is identified." As far as using the dredged material to fill where mitigation is most
needed—in the ever-widening waterway itself—that is currently under discussion.
A study is being conducted by the COE to identify long-term solutions. Said Hamerick,
"Presently, we're looking at ways to reduce the effects of erosion, as well as the creation of
additional whooping crane habitat using material excavated from the GIWW. Plans are
underway to construct a demonstration project employing some of these concepts this
summer, in conjunction with maintenance dredging in San Antonio Bay."
2 Each whooping crane pair—mated for life—occupies a 230- to 1,000-acre territory.
Dredge Spoils Used
to Restore Whooping
Crane Habitat
(continued)
8
-------
Meanwhile, the whooping cranes appear to be eyeing the newly created wetland with interest;
a pair of cranes was spotted feeding there in January. Stehn, excited by the sightings, said it
was an indication that the cranes would use what he calls "Whooper Hotel" when the flock
returns to Aransas next winter.
[For more information, contact David Templet, Mitchell Energy and Development, P.O. Box 4000,
Woodlands, TX, 77387-4000. Or contact Bob Hamerick, U.S. Army COE. Phone: (409) 766-3136. Or
contact Tom Stehn, Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, FAX (512) 2S&3722. Or contact Field Supervisor,
USFWS, Ecological Services, 6300 Ocean Drive, Campus Box 338, Corpus Christi, TX 78412.]
NPS from Treated Wood Structures
in the Coastal Environment
editor's note: This article was prepared by Judith S. Weis, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Rutgers Uni-
versity, Newark, NJ 07102 and Peddrick Weis, Dept. of Anatomy, NJ Medical School, Newark, NJ
07103 (both at EPA Lab, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, Spring 1992).
Background
People's awareness of nonpoint source pollution is generally restricted to runoff from
agricultural and urban sources. Another generally ignored source is leaching from in-place
structures in the aquatic environment itself. The unprecedented toxicity of tributyltin
antifouling paints from boats was an example that received a considerable amount of attention
and was the subject of specific legislation by the Congress.
Another example, about which much less is known, is leaching of chemicals from wooden
structures placed into the aquatic environment, specifically, pressure-treated wood that goes
by the trade name " Wolmanized" wood and is preserved with oxides of chromium, copper
and arsenic, or CCA. Many houses have backyard decks made of this material.
The level of the three chemicals put into the wood for decks is 0.4 lbs/cubic foot of wood. On
the other hand, wood designed for marine uses has 1.5 lbs/cubic foot, or in Florida, 2.5
lbs/cubic foot, which causes the wood to be quite green in color from having so much copper
in it. The wood preservers claim that the wood is very leach-resistant and that negligible
amounts of materials come out of it. This claim is made on the basis of very little weight loss
after immersion. However, there need not be a large percent of leaching in order to have toxic
effects, since these chemicals can be toxic at the parts-per-million level and are pressurized
into the wood at the parts-per-hundred level.
Much coastal development involves construction of pilings, bulkheads, and docks. To prevent
destruction by fungi and borers, the wood was previously treated with creosote
orpentachlorophenol. However, concern over the health effects of these chemicals caused them
to fall out of favor and be replaced by CCA. The three elements of CCA, however, are also
toxic, and their harmful effects on aquatic organisms are well known to biologists. There has
been considerable study of effects of each element individually on different species, but until
recently, there has been very little scientific study of effects of the treated wood itself on the
environment.
Research Results
Recent scientific studies, both in the laboratory and in the field, have begun to provide
additional evidence for leaching of the chemicals from the wood and resulting toxic effects.
Lab studies have shown that various organisms placed in aquaria with pieces of treated wood
show adverse effects, ranging from minor growth reductions to death, depending on the
amount of wood, the volume of water, and the sensitivity of the species. One interesting
response was that of mud snails (Nassarius obsoletus), which ceased their activity, retracted into
their shells, and lay on the bottom of the aquarium within a few minutes of exposure to wood
leachate. They could recover if placed back in clean sea water, but if they remained in the
leachate, they died within a few days. When we did experiments with separate chemicals, it
turned out that this response resulted from copper alone. Additional effects noted in animals
exposed to leachates from pieces of wood were retardation of limb regeneration in fiddler
crabs (Uca pugilator), mortality in fish embryos (Fundulus heteroclitus and Menidia bervllina), and
reduced fertilization in sea urchins (Arbacia punctulata) after sperm exposure. When the green
alga Ulva lactuca was exposed to leachates, the algae turned pale and lost chlorophyll (Weis et
al. 1991,1992).
Dredge Spoils Used
to Restore Whooping
Crane Habitat
(continued)
9
-------
NPS from Treated
Wood Structures
in the Coastal
Environment
(continued)
A confined laboratory aquarium is not the same as the real world in which more dilution and
washing away can occur. We have, therefore, followed up with field studies in areas where
bulkheads were present in estuaries. If chemicals are leaching from these wooden structures,
they might accumulate in nearby fine-grained sediments, since that is where many pollutants,
including metals, tend to accumulate. We have looked for copper, chromium, and arsenic in
the sediments adjacent to the wood structures and at varying distances away from the wood
and are finding evidence that the closer to the wood, the greater the amounts of metals
associated with the fine-grained sediments. Immediately by the bulkhead, those fine-grained
sediments are relatively scarce, since currents move the sediments away, leaving mostly sand.
More of the fine-grained sediments are found further away, in deeper water. But the
fine-grained sediments right by the bulkheads had very high levels of the chemicals. The
accumulation of metals in the sediments was greater in areas with less water movement, such
as a confined marina and a residential canal, compared with more open water environments
(Weis and Weis, in prep).
We have also sampled some benthic animals living in the sand by the bulkheads and found
that fiddler crabs, both Uca pugilator from Long Island, NY, and Uca panacea from Pensacola
Beach, FL, have elevated levels of the chemicals in their bodies, indicating that they are
accumulating the chemicals from the sediments (Weis and Weis, in press).
Another place in which the chemicals leaching from the wood might accumulate is in the
organisms that live directly on the wood itself. These organisms, sometimes referred to as a
"fouling" community but more properly referred to as a hard-substrate, or "epibiotic,"
community, live attached to the wood. We have sampled algae growing on the wood and
found that they had elevated levels of all three metals. When these algae (two species of green
algae (Ulva lactuca and Enteromorpha intestinalis)) were fed to mud snails for a month, the snails
either were retracted into their shells or were dead, while snails eating the same species of
algae collected from nearby rocks were all alive and active. This indicates that the metals
accumulated in the algae were toxic to grazers that fed on them (Weis and Weis, in press).
We have also collected oysters (Crassostrea virginica) from CCA-treated wood pilings in Pensacola
Beach, Florida. Those from a single dock in an open water area had levels of the metals that were
somewhat (significantly) higher than those in oysters collected from rocks. However, oysters
growing on bulkheads inside a residential canal that was lined on both sides with treated wood
and had relatively little flushing had very elevated concentrations, particularly of copper. Thus,
hard substrate organisms living directly on the wood can accumulate high concentrations of the
metals, especially in poorly flushed situations. The oysters are being examined for their tissue
structure, physiological parameters, and indicators of stress.
Possible Solutions to the Problem
We have found that the toxicity of pieces of the wood decreased over time, so that after a piece
had soaked for a number of weeks, it had much less of an effect in the laboratory (Weis et al,
1991). This means that one way to solve the problem would be for the wood preservers to let
the wood soak out for two to three months on site before marketing it. That way, most of the
leaching would have taken place and the wood would not be such an environmental problem.
Another approach would be to replace the wood with another type of material altogether. One
alternative construction material that we have looked at is a product made of recycled plastic.
This "lumber" can be used for making bulkheads and has much lower toxicity to estuarine
organisms. In addition, it would provide a market for recycled plastic, which in some places is
collected from homeowners in the form of bottles and containers and which sits in the
recycling center for a very long time because there is not much of a market for it. So, using
recycled plastic would solve two problems at once —removing it from the waste stream and
replacing a toxic construction material.
Our research indicates that leaching from CCA-treated wood can be a significant source of
contamination in coastal areas that are otherwise relatively clean. The extent of coastal
development using this wood as the material for docks, bulkheads, and pilings is major.
Sources can be from marinas but also from individual homeowners with shoreline property,
especially along residential canals. This is an environmental issue that has not received
attention from EPA, and it could be remedied relatively easily.
Literature Cited
Weis, P., J.S. Weis, and L. Coohill 1991. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20:188-124.
Weis, P., J.S. Weis, A. Greenberg and T. Nosker. 1992. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 22:99-106.
Weis, J. and P. Weis. In press. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
10
-------
Notes on Local Riparian and Watershed Management
Bureau of Land Management Proclaims
Federal Lands Riparian-Wetlands Initiative
An updated plan for managing riparian areas and wetlands on federally owned public lands
was issued by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on January 22,
1992.
Initially issued during September 1991, the plan is titled: Riparian-Wetlands Initiative for the
1990's. H. James Fox, Chief of BLM's Division of Rangeland Resources, said the plan,
... sets a series of goals and strategies to meet healthy conditions on the 23.7 million acres of
riparian-wetlands managed by BLM.
The Initiative also summarizes the state of our efforts at managing these vital ribbons of
green that are so valuable for fish, wildlife, livestock, water quality, recreation, and
biodiversity.
The plan document set forth four national goals:
1. Restore and maintain riparian areas and wetlands so that 75 percent are in proper
functioning condition1 by 1997. The overall objective is to achieve an advanced
ecological status, except where resource management objectives, including proper
functioning condition, would require an earlier successional stage.
2. Protect riparian areas and wetland areas and associated uplands through proper land
management, and avoid or mitigate negative impacts. Acquire and expand key areas
to provide for their maximum public benefit, protection enhancement, and efficient
management.
3. Ensure an aggressive riparian areas and wetlands education program, including
providing training and research.
4. Improve partnerships and cooperative restoration and management efforts in
implementing the initiative.
The development of state and district strategies for dealing with the national goals on a
site-specific basis are underway. The plan ranks projects, locally, in priority order based on
such factors as
... critical water quality problems, potential for improvement, risk of further degradation,
threatened or endangered species habitat, fisheries, and recreation values..:
Individual strategies for each state where there are BLM-managed lands include a logical
sequence of riparian inventories and planning, project development and maintenance, and
monitoring to determine if objectives are being met.
Among the stated national objectives on riparian area-wetland restoration and maintenance
are:
¦ Assure that all Resource Management Plans address riparian-wetland needs and that all
plans are consistent with State Nonpoint Source (NPS) Management Plans.
m Inventory, prioritize, and initiate needed treatment on abandoned mines in riparian-wetland
areas.
The document also states:
Where permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act are required, [BLM will] work with
the Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
others to assure compliance with the law.
1 The term proper functioning condition is defined in BLM's plan to mean: The functioning condition of riparian-wetland areas is a result of
interaction among geology, soil, water, and vegetation. Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation is
present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment
and aid floodplain development; improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks
against cutting action; develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and
temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity.
11
-------
Bureau of Land
Management
Proclaims
Federal Lands
Riparian-Wetlands
Initiative
(continued)
Cooperative funding of projects involving landowners, other federal agencies and private
groups is called for under the riparian-wetlands initiative. XAn example of one such
undertaking in Colorado has been reported in News-Notes. ) The plan document also states,
Organizations such as the Public Lands Restoration Task Force of the Izaak Walton League
of America, Inc., Trout Unlimited, and others work with BLM's Volunteer Program to
encourage and facilitate valuable volunteer assistance. Such volunteer assistance not only
helps to complete projects and perform required maintenance, but it also heightens public
appreciation of the value of riparian-wetland resources.
Copies of BLM's Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990s as well as individual state riparian
strategy plans can be obtained from the following Bureau of Land Management offices:
NOTE:: In each case, add "Bureau of Land Management" to the addresses shown below.
Bureau of Land Management Offices
Headquarters Office (222)
1849 C Street NW
Premier Bldg., Room 909
Washington DC 20240
(202) 653-9210
Alaska State Office (930)
222 W. 7th Avenue #13
Anchorage, AK 99513-7599
(907) 271-3356
Arizona State Office (932)
3707 N. 7th Street
P.O. Box 16563
Phoenix, AZ 85011
(503) 280-7954
California State Office (932)
2800 Cottage Way (E-2841)
Sacramento, CA 95825-1889
(916) 978-4725
Colorado State Office (933)
2850 Youngfield Street
Lakewood, CO 80215
(303) 239-3718
Eastern States1 Office (960)
350 S. Pickett Street
Alexandria, VA 22304
(703) 461-1307
Idaho State Office (931)
3383 Americana Terrace
Boise, ID 83706
(208) 384-3066
Montana2 State Office (931)
222 N. 32nd Street
P.O. Box 36800
Billings, MT 59107
(801) 539-4058
Nevada State Office (931)
850 Harvard Way, P.O. Box 12000
Reno, NV 89520-0006
(702) 785-6473
New Mexico3 State Office
(931)
South Federal Place
P.O. Box 1449
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1449
(505) 988-6231
Oregon State Office (932)
1300 N.E. 44th Street
P.O. Box 2965
Portland, OR 97213
(602) 640-5509
Utah State Office (932)
324 South State Street, Suite 301
Salt Lake City UT 84111-2303
(406) 255-2928
Wyoming4 State Office (932)
P.O. Box 1828
Cheyenne, WY 82003
(307) 775-6256
1 Includes all states east of a line approximating the 100th Meridian. 3 Includes lands in Oklahoma and Kansas.
2 Includes lands in North Dakota and South Dakota. 4 Includes lands in Nebraska.
[For further information contact Don Waite, Chief, Branch of Soil, Water and Air, BLM(W.O. 222) 1849 C
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. Phone: (FTS/202) 653-9210.]
California's Tomki Watershed Project Enters Its Eleventh Year
As A Local Landowner/Multi-Agency/State/Federal Undertaking
An EPA grant of $182,000 made in December 1981 under §208 of the original 1972-passed
Clean Water Act (CWA) is still paying off in California's north coast Mendocino County. The
State Water Resources Control Board administered the grant which was made to the county's
Resource Conservation District (RCD). Over the next two years, the District, an organization of
landowners in the county, with the assistance of Mendocino County, the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS), and a local citizens' advisory committee, developed the Tomki Creek Watershed
Pilot Project Plan.
The same actors are involved today almost ten years later, with, if anything, more vigor than
ever. EPA is participating now with Clean Water Act nonpoint source §319(h) funds enacted by
the 1987 amendments to the CWA. State involvement has broadened through new cost-share
programs. But the local program's purpose as originally planned with 208 Kinds remains the
2 See Issue #16 (October-December 1991), which report that with EPA §319 money, the state of Colorado is participating with BLM and
other state, federal and local agencies (including private owners) in the 135,000-acre Badger Creek project. That report states: BLM has
been testing intensive grazing in riparian areas to demonstrate that time controlled grazing can assist in streambank stabilization.
Additionally, BLM has constructed erosion control dams, erected precipitation monitoring stations, and, with USGS, has installed
automated measuring devices.
12
-------
California's Tomki
Watershed Project
Enters It's Eleventh
Year As A Local
Landowner/
Multi-Agency/State/
federal Undertaking
(continued)
same: basic watershed restoration. The plan hasn't changed. But involvement and
participation has broadened under local initiative and leadership.
The 1983 plan called for treating sources of watershed instability and water quality problems
caused by sediment from historic logging, grazing, and road building practices, as well as
stabilizing these problems within the riverine system.
The 40,000-acre Tomki Creek watershed, with its tributary to the Eel River, is primarily
privately owned upland forest and rangeland, with typical watershed problems common to
the streams and rivers of the north coast of California.
The erosion inventory of the 1983 plan indicated that some 21,000 cubic yards of sediment was
finding its way into Tomki Creek each year. Twenty-one thousand cubic yards would cover the
city block on which the Mendocino County Courthouse sits with sediment fourteen feet deep,
watershed planners said in 1983.
Heavy loadings of sediment, called "fines," have severely impaired the beneficial uses of the
cold-water fishery in two ways. First, Chinook salmon spawning habitat has been seriously
reduced by fines smothering spawning gravels. Second, steelhead rearing habitat has been
severely limited as pools have become filled with sediment. Shallow pools hamper fish
survival during critical low flow periods. Highly turbid water reduces feeding activity of
steelhead, reducing their growth and value to downstream sport fishing. The losses have had
serious economic impacts throughout the north coast.
The 20 sub-basins within the watershed have been ranked and prioritized for treatment as
funding becomes available. From 1983 to the present, the Mendocino RCD has received over
$650,000 in grants from the California Department of Fish and Game's Salmon and Steelhead
Restoration Funds to implement erosion control practices described in the plan. Cost-share
programs such as the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) and the California Forest
Improvement Program (CFIP), along with funds from private land owners and road
associations have brought in between $100,000 and $150,000 in private funds.
These funds have been used to priority treat the sub-basins of Wheelbarrow Creek, Rocktree
Creek and portions of Tomki Creek. The Mendocino RCD was awarded $100,000 of FY 90
§319(h) funds to implement best management practices (BMPs) in the String and Tarter Creek
sub-basins. The project focused on the String Creek sub-basin in the central portion of the
Tomki drainage. Streambank, gully, and road sites (previously identified in the 1983 plan) in
the mid- and lower portion of String Creek were treated. Treatments included: rock riprap;
wing deflectors; revegetation with willow; poplar; and alder; brush mats; bank shaping to
stable configurations; exclusionary fencing; seed and mulch; culverts and outlet dissipaters.
The primary emphasis was the "bioengineering approach." This practice incorporates and
integrates rock and wood structures with living plants and root systems. Revegetation is seen
as the most cost-effective long-term sediment control treatment, but in certain stream
locations, it requires some structures to reduce velocities to levels tolerable for plant growth.
Landowner support for these types of projects is strong. Funds from landowners have been
used to supplement the §319(h) money. The treatments dealing with raw and unstable
streambanks, for example, will dramatically reduce sediment to a natural background rate.
The upland treatments dealing with road erosion control will also reduce sediment delivery to
background rates.
The Mendocino RCD was awarded two additional §319(h) grants in FY 91:
Tomki Creek Implementation Project, Phase II — $30,000
¦ This project continues treatments in the next highest priority sub-basins in the Tomki
Creek watershed: Cave, Little, Long Branch, and Noname creeks. These streams are
tributaries to the main stem of Tomki Creek. Treatment in these upland areas should
be completed before more work is undertaken downstream in Tomki Creek.
¦ The project plan includes a variety of BMPs using the bioengineering approach. All
the proposed techniques were designed by the SCS and local bioengineering experts,
with input from the California Department of Fish and Game.
1 Ranking is based on factors dealing with location, severity of sediment loading, and landowner cooperation within the sub-basin. Each
factor is scored from 1 to 3, with the total rating combining all three factors to determine priority. EPA Region IX has informed News-Notes
that this system has been used as a model throughout the state as an effective means for targeting watershed areas to be acted on as
funding is available.
2 Road associations are road maintenance groups of local private landowners who pool together funds to maintain roads with common
access.
13
-------
California's Tomki
Watershed Project
Enters It's Eleventh
Year As A Local
Landowner/
Multi-Agency/State/
Federal Undertaking
(continued)
"Watershed Restoration: How to Heal the Land," a public outreach video series —
$18,000
¦ Technology transfer has always been an ongoing feature of the Tomki Watershed
Project, which has been the site of numerous tours and demonstrations of various
sediment control techniques.
¦ The Mendocino RCD will produce a 20-minute public education and information
video based on the work that has been done on the Tomki Creek watershed. The
video will provide information on the basics of watershed planning, typical
problems, and types of BMPs used to treat coastal range watersheds. It will also
provide an understanding of the institutional arrangements and funding
considerations for such projects. The video will be targeted for the general public,
and college and high school audiences.
Tom Schott, long-time SCS District Conservationist with the Mendocino RCD, made this
comment to News-Notes as he reviewed the highlights of the Tomki Creek project:
Water quality problems take many different forms beyond traditional agriculture. In the
West, some very unique resources like salmon are at risk. I hope SCS can continue to
recognize these resources and value them the same way the local RCD and Tomki landowners
have.
[For more information, contact Tom Schott, District Conservationist, USDA/SCS (Mendocino RCD),
405 Orchard Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482. Phone: (707) 468-9223. FAX: (707) 462-1165.]
In New Jersey, Wildflowers Used to Clean Up
Stormwater Nonpoint Source Pollution
A friendly correspondent from the far reaches of Mercer County, New Jersey, sent in the
following dispatch concerning some awesome uses of wildflowers in stormwater/NPS control
that we are delighted to pass on to our readers.
The Mercer County (New Jersey) Soil Conservation District has just completed a nonpoint
source study concerning the establishment of wildflower cover in stormwater detention
basins. This low-input alternative to turf reduces potential nonpoint source pollutants, such as
fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from being introduced to an area directly linked to the
local watershed. In addition, wildflowers provide a seed source and habitat for native
songbirds. They are aesthetically pleasing and require only one to two mowings per year,
much less than the six or more mowings required for standard turf. This reduces fossil fuel use
and noise pollution and significantly reduces the annual cost of maintaining these stormwater
management structures.
The results of the study showed proper seed mixtures, seeding rates, planting techniques, and
even wildflower maintenance strategies. The overall objective was to demonstrate an
alternative to maintaining costly turf basins while improving water quality and providing
much-needed meadow habitat in suburban areas.
The study was made possible by EPA CWA §205(j) matching grant funds provided by the state
of New Jersey. Copies of the study are available for $10.00, postage included, by contacting the
address below.
[For further information, contact Bill Brash, Mercer County Soil Conservation District, Attention: Wildflower
Study, 508 Hughes Drive, Hamilton Square, NJ 08690. Phone: (609) 586-9603. FAX: (609) 586-1117.]
Austin Voters Place Nonpoint Source
Prevention On May Ballot
editor's note: We asked Bill Bunch, attorney for the Save Our Springs Coalition in Austin, to send us
this article on the grass-roots environmental action that Austin residents are taking.
In Austin, TX, the Save Our Springs Coalition recently gathered 35,000 voter signatures to
place an ordinance to protect the Barton Springs watershed on the city ballot. The S.O.S.
ordinance may well be the first effort in the nation to adopt a nonpoint source pollution
control ordinance by citizens' initiative.
The S.O.S. Coalition formed around the issue of protecting Barton Springs. The source of the
springs, the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer, is an EPA-designated "sole source aquifer" for
approximately 30,000 residents of southern Travis and northern Hays counties. Barton Springs
14
-------
Austin Voters Place
Nonpoint Source
Prevention On
May Ballot
(continued)
provide a significant source of drinking water for Austin. The springs also provide recreation
for city residents as they pour out into a 900-foot swimming pool in Zilker Park, a short
distance south of the State Capital Building.
In 1990, the Texas Water Commission identified the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer as the
major aquifer in Texas most vulnerable to pollution. The thin soils, patchy vegetation, and
rocky slopes of the central Texas, hill country provide little opportunity for natural pollutant
assimilation on the surface. Rainfall runoff enters the limestone aquifer through faults, caves
and sinkholes. The open-channel, high-velocity flow characteristic of limestone aquifers allows
very little opportunity for natural filtration in the subsurface.
Austin residents have known for many years that the watersheds contributing to the aquifer
should be protected. The "Austin Tomorrow" Comprehensive Plan adopted unanimously by
two city councils and planning commissions in the 1970s called for directing urban growth
east of both the recharge zone and the contributing streams for Barton Springs. A series of
watershed protection ordinances enacted in the 1980s sought to implement the watershed
protection and growth management goals of the Austin Tomorrow plan. Austin's 1986
Comprehensive Watersheds Ordinance has been cited by many as a model, "cutting-edge"
effort by a city at the forefront of environmental protection.
As in many communities, Austin's nonpoint source pollution control and growth management
control efforts have been undermined by the influence of development interests. Austin,
perhaps more than any other community, was targeted for high-risk savings-and-loan-backed
real estate development in the early and mid-1980s. Development interests were very
successful in writing exemptions and other loopholes in Austin's watershed protection
measures. In fact, an October 1991 memo by city staff revealed that even after the 1986
ordinance was adopted, 87 percent of all development projects located in the Barton Springs
contributing watersheds were exempt from the ordinance. Many of the remaining projects
were granted variances to allow high-intensity urban development on top of the state's most
vulnerable aquifer.
Learning from a history of broken promises by elected officials, a coalition of environmental
leaders formed to draft their own ordinance for a citizens' initiative. The ordinance combines a
"pollution prevention" performance standard with a design standard limiting impervious
cover. The pollution prevention, or nondegradation, standard requires that there be no
increase from pre-development conditions in the annual average loadings of several pollutants
commonly found in urban runoff. In addition, impervious cover in the Barton Springs
recharge zone is limited to no more than 15 percent of "net site area," which includes only the
relatively flat uplands of a development tract. Impervious cover limits in the upstream
contributing zone are set at 20 percent of net site area. The strict impervious cover limits
recognize that structural controls alone cannot maintain water quality.
Two other important provisions of the citizens' ordinance address cleanup of
already-developed areas and risks of catastrophic events. The city recently embarked on an
urban watershed retrofit program intended to reduce nonpoint source pollution from existing
development. Environmental leaders are concerned that the cleanup program will focus on
expensive engineered controls when less expensive measures such as education, xeriscape
programs, and incentives for limiting use of pesticides and fertilizers could provide greater
water quality benefits at lower costs. The proposed citizens' ordinance requires that any funds
spent on remedying existing NPS problems be spent in the most cost-efficient manner.
The proposed citizens' ordinance also calls for the city to develop a plan for minimizing risks
of catastrophic spills of hazardous pollutants into the city's waterways. At present, no such
plan exists, though truck and train traffic, pipelines, and other activities pose significant risks
of major accidents.
A four-member majority of the seven-member city council has strongly resisted the citizens'
initiative ordinance. On March 17, a state district judge ordered the city to place the initiative
ordinance on the May 2 ballot. On March 19, the city appealed the order in an emergency
hearing before the court of civil appeals. The order for the May 2 election was upheld.
That evening, the four-member majority again refused to place the item on the ballot. As a
result, the city council may be held in contempt of court and the judge forced to call the
election. The city may decide to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. Meanwhile, developers in
the Barton Springs watershed as well as the S.O.S. Coalition are gearing up for the campaign.
[For more information on the citizens' initiative, contact William G. Bunch, attorney for S.O.S., at 1800
Guadalupe, Suite C, Austin, TX 78701. For information concerning the Barton Creek watershed, contact
George Cofer, programs manager for another organization, the Save Barton Creek Association, at 3306
Gentry Dr., Austin, TX 78746-5507. Phone: (512)328-2481.]
15
-------
McKnight Foundation Initiates
Restoration of Mississippi River
The McKnight Foundation of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced on March 16,1992, a
five-year, $9 million commitment to protect and restore the Mississippi River. This new
program will award grants to stimulate local activities that protect specific areas along the
river. Grants will also be awarded to build local and national networks linking those with a
stake in the river in collaborative efforts to protect it. The Foundation has indicated that it
hopes its program will focus increased public attention on the river and will attract the
resources of other individuals and organizations for restoring the health of the Mississippi.
According to Cynthia Boynton, Foundation president:
The Mississippi River, with its headwaters in Minnesota, is one of America's most valuable
resources. The state of the environment along the Mississippi River directly affects the quality of
life of millions of people living in Minnesota and the rest of middle America. Yet studies show
that long stretches of the river are suffering serious degradation.
The McKnight Foundation's commitment to address environmental issues along the
Mississippi River is tied to Its primary mission, which is to expand opportunities for people
who are poor or disadvantaged. Michael O'Keefe, executive vice president explained:
The poorest communities are those that most often are forced to suffer the consequences of other
people's hazardous wastes and pollution. Residents of endangered riverside areas frequently lack
the resources to identify and stop threats to their portions of the river, whether the pollution
originates in their own community or has its source many miles upstream. This new
Foundation program includes an emphasis on helping people whose capacity to deal with
environmental problems is limited by poverty or prejudice.
Dozens of agencies and groups relate to small stretches of the river, yet no single organization
or network deals with the entire river. The Foundation will therefore also encourage
collaboration among people and organizations concerned with or affected by the health of the
Mississippi. O'Keefe continued:
The Foundation believes much can be accomplished if people work across state and other
boundaries for the good of the entire river.
A Foundation-funded report by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) at the
Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota documents the environmental problems of the
Mississippi. Citing the report, Mr. O'Keefe noted that environmental threats to one stretch of
the river also affect areas elsewhere. He observed:
The number of ducks, geese and other waterfowl that migrate to Minnesota every spring are
reduced by wetland losses in Mississippi and Arkansas. The widespread use of farm
chemicals in Illinois and Iowa affects the river quality in Louisiana.
Program Components
The McKnight Mississippi River program has three components.
¦ Mississippi River Network Grants will create and strengthen networks of
organizations active in protecting the river, particularly citizens' groups.
¦ Demonstration Projects, for which priorities will be announced later in 1992, will be
intensive efforts developed and overseen by the Foundation to address specific
environmental issues in selected 50- to 150-mile reaches of the river.
¦ General Grants, of up to $50,000, will support a range of innovative projects that
protect and restore the health of the Mississippi River and river communities in the
ten states bordering the Mississippi.
Planning Grants Awarded
Four organizations have been awarded planning grants to assist the Foundation in developing
strategies for protecting and restoring the Mississippi. The Foundation will use the results of
these exploratory efforts to develop the networking component of the program and to select
specific areas for demonstration projects.
¦ The Sierra Club Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin, was awarded $20,000 to convene
Mississippi River conservation groups and environmental organizations to assess
the feasibility of creating a river-long environmental coalition.
16
-------
With an $18,000 grant, the Freshwater Foundation, Wayzata, Minnesota will identify
ways to improve protection of the Mississippi in Minnesota.
The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation of Des Moines, with a $7,500 grant, will
evaluate ways to improve protection of the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and
Fish Refuge which stretches from Lake Pepin to the Quad Cities (Rock Island and
Moline, Illinois; Bettendorf and Davenport, Iowa).
The University of Minnesota's CURA was granted $17,850 to develop a strategy for
helping riverfront cities protect the Mississippi environment.
The McKnight Foundation
The McKnight Foundation is a private charitable foundation with primary interests in
expanding opportunities for people who are poor or disadvantaged by enhancing their
capacity for productive living. The Foundation also seeks to strengthen community and
community institutions, to enrich people's lives through the arts and to encourage
preservation of the natural environment. The Foundation's primary geographic focus in its
human services and arts grant-making is the state of Minnesota. Founded in 1953 and
endowed by William L. and Maude L. McKnight, the Foundation has assets of approximately
$1 billion, and it paid grants totalling $46.6 million in 1991. Mr. McKnight was one of the
founders of the 3M Company, although the Foundation is independent of that corporation.
[For further information and for guidelines for the program of general grants for the Mississippi program
contact the McKnight Foundation, Suite 600, TFC Tower, 121 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402.
Phone: (612) 333-4220. Daniel K. Flay is program officer for the environment.]
Report Documents Insults
To The Mississippi River
A McKnight Foundation-funded report by the Humphrey Institute's Center for Urban and
Regional Affairs (CURA), laid the groundwork for the Foundation's new $9 million, five-year
program to protect and restore the Mississippi River. (See the preceding story.)
The report documents three primary insults to the Mississippi River: farm runoff, toxic
emissions, and the loss of wetlands.
Some of the report's findings are:
¦ Spills into the river. Between 1982 and 1986 an average 116 spills into the river were
reported annually. From 1987 to 1991, the yearly average was 246 and by October
1991,378 spills had already occurred that year. Most spills are oils and chemicals, but
sewage and saltwater have been reported.
¦ Industrial and farm chemicals. In a single year (1990) farmers spread more than 21
billion pounds of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on croplands in the region, and
industries in the Mississippi River basin released 2.3 billion pounds of toxins into the
environment. Some pollutants were discharged directly into the Mississippi, but
others were carried by wind and soil erosion through underground streams and
surface tributaries into the river.
¦ Wetlands. Since the late 1700s, the Mississippi River basin has lost 66 million acres of
wetlands (an area the size of Colorado) largely as a result of agricultural drainage.
Minnesota, Illinois, Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana are the states with the
largest number of wetland acres lost. Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and
Kentucky all have lost 76 to 90 percent of their original wetland acres.
¦ Erosion. Wind and water erosion swept 1,080 million tons of soil off cropland in the
Mississippi basin during 1987. Losses that exceed five tons per acre are considered
more than can be replaced by soil-building activities. Iowa, Illinois, Missouri,
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi were above the five-ton replacement threshold
in 1987. In Minnesota, 57 million tons of soil were lost, an average of less than three
tons per acre.
[Copies of the report, Environment and the River: Maps of the Mississippi by William J. Craig and William
S. Anderson, are available upon request from the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA), Hubert
H. Humphrey Institute, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55417.]
Restoration of ¦
Mississippi River is
the Subject of u
McKnight Foundation
Initiative
(continued)
17
-------
Lake County, Ohio Conservation District
Tackles Phosphorus Reduction To Lake Erie
Early in March, John Niedzalek, District Conservationist with the Lake County Soil and Water
Conservation District, submitted a progress report to the District's eighteen member Water
Quality Steering Committee.1
Lake County is on the shores of Lake Erie some thirty miles east of Cleveland. Its 118
commercial nurseries occupying 4,600 acres justifiably earn the county the title of the "nursery
capitol of Ohio." The District is the recipient of two nonpoint source-related grants. One for
$4,400 is EPA §319 money through Ohio's Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). The
other, $6,000 of state money from ODNR, is to implement a Watershed Watch program
through eight local schools to monitor water quality along the Grand River stream corridor.
The health of aquatic insects is being used as an indicator.
The District has also received a grant from the Ohio Farm Bureau to develop two conservation
displays for exhibit at MetroPark's heavily used 200-acre Farm Park in Lake County. The
District has established a goal in Lake County to reduce phosphorus from agricultural sources
moving into Lake Erie by 1.8 metric tons over the next five years.
Niedzalek's water quality report succinctly details what has happened:
Some time ago Lake SWCD had a series of water quality meetings to address nonpoint
pollution, especially regarding phosphorus. A committee was formed and helped to develop a
phosphorus reduction strategy.
Since that time some significant progress has occurred that I would like to bring you up to
date on:
1. Lake SWCD received a $4,400 grant to implement a phosphorus reduction program.
2. The grant is being used for a three-year program addressing fertility management and
erosion control on nurseryland and implementation of erosion control and stormwater
practices on development sites. Progress to date:
a. A joint Lake SWCD-Cooperative Extension project initiated for phosphorus
reduction from nurseryland.
b. A fertility survey was developed and sent to all nurseries and fertilizer
distributors.
c. A phosphorus fact sheet was developed and will be used by Extension and Lake
SWCD at workshops.
d. News articles and information letters were sent to nurseries regarding
cost-sharing for erosion control practices.
e. More than 3,000 linear feet of filter strips have been installed by Lake County
nurseries.
f. A nursery field day is planned for April 28, stressing fertility management and
erosion control practices.
g. Signed a working agreement with the City of Mentor to review development
plans.
h. Completed review of more than 30 development plans for the City of Mentor and
the county stressing erosion control practices and stormwater management.
i. Conducted two workshops for government officials and contractors concerning
the need for erosion and stormwater practices in Lake County; more than 100 in
attendance.
3. Initiated a resolution to state soil and water commission to revise the Ohio Revised Code
to allow stricter enforcement of installation of erosion control practices on development
sites.
1 The committee is composed of representatives of the county extension service, utilities and planning commission; municipal waterworks;
the Health District; the SWCD Board and SCS representative as well as several commercial nurseries and farms.
18
-------
With assistance from county commissioners, a full-time pollution abatement specialist is
now on our staff
Lake SWCD helped sponsor a volunteer lake monitoring program occurring at the Holden
Arboretum.
Lake SWCD recently received another grant to implement a watershed watch program for
the Grand River. This is for middle schoolers.
A grant was recently received from the Farm Bureau to construct a conservation practice
display at the MetroPark's Farm Park.
editor's note: A $4,400 §319 grant is certainly putting a lot of things in motion in Lake County, Ohio,
proving once again that locally is where the real action is.
[For further information contact: John Niedzalek, District Conservationist, Lake County Soil and Water
Conservation District, 125 E. Erie St., Painesville, OH44077. Phone: (216) 357-2730.]
Integration of Water Quality Programs
Urged by EPA Headquarters Managers
In a recent (March 5,1992) internal memorandum, four EPA Headquarters program managers
from water planning, standards, nonpoint source control and permits programs jointly
encouraged their regional counterparts to join forces to improve coordination and
collaboration in the implementation of water quality-based programs.
The memorandum discussed recent EPA steps to promote holistic water quality protection
within geographically targeted areas and asked the regional program managers to take specific
steps to advance collaborative efforts. They stated:
Priority-setting and targeting are elements in each of your programs. The first step toward full
program collaboration is to target at least a portion of each program's activities on the same
waterbodies. The second step is to reinforce critical elements of the water quality management
process through each program. This would lead, for example, to §314 grants that require
watershed plans and TMDLs, storm water permits that are developed along with NPS activities
under §319, and TMDLs that incorporate multiple point source permits and NPS reductions.
The memorandum was signed by Russ Kinerson, Chief, Exposure Assessment Branch, Office
of Science and Technology; Jim Pendergast, Acting Chief, Water Quality and Industrial Permits
Branch, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance; Bruce Newton, Chief, Watershed
Branch and Dov Weitman, Chief, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, both of the Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
editor's note: We couldn't agree more. The holistic management of water means not only full consid-
eration of fish and wildlife habitat as well as water chemistry and point and nonpoint sources of water
pollution, but also the utilization of the many sections of the Clean Water Act, integrated and focused
on priority watersheds. This is a step in the right direction.
NPS Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) News
NPS Bulletin Board Goes Esoteric!
editor's note: This article was contributed by Burnell Vincent of EPA's Office of Research and Devel-
opment. Burnell is the Technical Monitor of the new Research SIG.
A new Special Interest Group (SIG) has been added to the NPS BBS. BBS users are now invited to
share progress reports on their favorite research projects in the nonpoint source world. All BBS
users will be able to join the Research SIG simply by entering J 4 at the main board prompt.
In the beginning, the messages, bulletins, and files in the Research SIG will be mostly EPA's
research as reported in the sometimes-stodgy ORD weekly activity reports. However,
telephone challenges and copies of this newsletter are being delivered to activists in ORD's
nonpoint source community, and engineers and scientists are being urged to personally direct
Lake County, Ohio 4.
Conservation District
Tackles Phosphorus 5
Reduction To
Lake Erie
(continued) 6.
19
-------
their research reports towards the users of this SIG. We have challenged them to provide
phone numbers, dates and locations of projects, and their objectives and constraints, in the
parlance of NPS decision-makers.
But more than just ORD activities, we are hoping to make the SIG a forum of exchange for
state and local NPS programs, universities, even consultants! We invite reports of NPS- related
research from all sources, and solicit queries about who's doing what and why. We have
posted notice of the SIG on USDA's Telemail system and in each of several other media that
have come to mind, such as the Econotes newsletter. Look forward to seeing your peers'
thoughts on the screen!
As always, browsers and grazers are welcome, and commenters and uploaders are avidly
encouraged.
To access the BBS, use your telecommunications software and modem (1200 or 2400 baud) to
dial (301) 589-0205. For more information, use the COUPON in the back of this News-Notes to
write for the free NPS BBS users' manual.
The Watershed Restoration Network:
Combining New Movements with New Technology
editor's note: The following article was submitted by Debra Caldon, one of the technical monitors for
the BBS's new Watershed Restoration Network and former NPS coordinator in EPA Region IX.
The first thing we learned from the salmon was the importance of the watershed as the
unit of perception.
— Freeman House, member, Mattole Restoration Council
With the advent of electronic meeting technology, the thrust of civilization can now occur
without the factor of proximity.
— Lawrence R. Brilliant in Computer Conferencing: The Global Connection
The Mattole River is a small river by California standards. It flows from the coastal range of
northern California 64 miles to the Pacific, one of the few remaining rivers with a pure genetic
stock of king salmon, albeit nearly extinct. Beyond diversity and extinction, the Mattole River
reflects a new approach to environmental protection. The river and its watershed are
championed by the Mattole Restoration Council, a group of citizens that have taken the health
of their watershed beyond 'concern' to environmental action. For twelve years the council has
planned and instituted the watershed's restoration.
The council represents a wave in a broader movement within the minds of the public and
government agencies—a growing trend toward self-help for ecological restoration in rural
America. But what is even more promising is that all along the coast of California and in
watersheds throughout the west, there are numerous people—professionals, watershed
associations, non-profit organizations—all with the same goal in mind: restoring the ecological
balance of the watershed in which they live.
The biggest needs these groups have, besides funding, are information and an avenue that
enables them to learn from one another. Because of their often-remote locations or lack of
access to institutional networks, most groups are fairly isolated from the normal routes of
technical information transfer.
Enter the Watershed Restoration Network
The NPS Bulletin Board System allows anyone, anywhere, with a modem and a computer to
access all kinds of information about nonpoint source pollution. This concept excited Mike
Fumiss, a USFS hydrologist and member of the Watershed Restoration Council, a non-profit
organization of watershed management professionals who are scattered in numerous agencies,
institutions, and fields across the western states (see article on the Council in News-Notes issue
#17, December 1991).
NPS Bulletin Board
Goes Esoteric!
(continued)
20
-------
As editor of the Watershed Management Council's newsletter, Mike was alert to the need for
broader information exchange among those involved in management and restoration projects.
As a hydrologist implementing restoration projects in the Six Rivers National Forest, he was
acutely aware of the pitfalls and hard lessons he and others, like the Mattole group, had
learned from their projects. Mike felt a Special Interest Group (SIG) Forum on the NPS BBS
would encourage the sharing of this type of information between professionals and lay
people—hence the Watershed Restoration Network was conceived. EPA's Watershed Branch in
Washington, D.C. shares this vision for promoting grass-roots restoration and provided
financial support for the endeavor.
The Watershed Restoration Network (WRN) will be a feature of the NPS BBS dedicated to
watershed management and restoration. Specific topic areas include: monitoring information,
project summaries, fisheries improvement approaches, shareware programs for watershed
applications, grants availability, and newsletters from restoration groups. The WRN will use
the BBS's message and bulletin functions to enable interested folks to trade ideas, put out calls
for assistance, and stay in touch with each other.
The WRN team will be developing a brochure to reach target groups—local watershed
associations, nonprofit organizations, fisheries groups, etc.—who may be interested in using
and sharing this information. We expect to beta-test the system sometime in early spring. If
you are interested or have information to share, contact Mike Furniss through the NPS BBS
(leave a message on line for Michael Furniss) or call him at (707) 441-3551. Or contact Debra
Caldon (510) 843-5397.
Watch News-Notes and the BBS for announcement of WRN's official opening.
Fish Consumption Advisory SIG Reopens
The Fish Consumption Advisory Special Interest Group (SIG) established by EPA's Risk
Assessment and Management Branch has reopened on the NPS BBS. All BBS users now have
immediate access to the SIG (formerly, users wanting to join the SIG had to request
membership). There is also a manual now available specifically for users of the Fish
Consumption SIG.
The purpose of the Fish Advisory SIG is to promote the exchange of fish advisory information
among federal agencies, state health departments, state fish and game services, state water
pollution control agencies and the public.
The Fish Consumption SIG's primary feature is a database that contains a bibliography of fish
advisory-related reports, a table of existing fish advisories/bans for each state, and the names
and phone numbers of colleagues who can provide additional information.
The table of existing fish advisories contains the following information:
¦ chemical of concern
¦ nature of the advisory (for the general public, a subpopulation, or commercial)
¦ common name of the species of fish the advisory covers
¦ name of the waterbody
¦ geographical extent
The database of fish advisories and bans can be searched for specific information. One possible
way to search the database is to request the number, location and type of fish advisories in a
particular state. A second possibility includes the number and location of all the fish advisories
that have been issued in the United States for a specific contaminant such as chlordane.
The bibliography can be searched by title, author, and keywords. When possible, contact
names, phone numbers, and addresses are provided for the listed documents and advisories.
Messages, bulletins and news articles allow users to share fish advisory-related information
and publicize fish advisory-related activities. Users can exchange computer files, including
databases, electronic spreadsheets, word-processing files, and software.
The Watershed
Restoration Network:
Combining New
Movements with New
Technology
(continued)
21
-------
To access the NPS BBS, you will need a personal computer, telecommunications software (such
as Crosstalk or ProComm), a modem (1200 or 2400 baud) and a phone line that will handle
modem communications. The phone number of the BBS is (301) 589-0205. The Fish
Consumption SIG can be accessed by typing J 2 at the 'Main Board Command?' prompt. We
invite everyone to take a look at the database and welcome any suggestions on how to
improve its use.
A copy of the Fish Advisory SIG and database manual can be downloaded, or it can be mailed
to you. If you would like a copy, or if you have information to contribute to the Fish Advisory
SIG, contact Alison Greene at (FTS/202) 260-7053.
Right On, Kansas! A BBS First
editor's note: We recently logged on to the NPS BBS Waterbody System Support SIG to find the fol-
lowing message from Bill Cooter of RTI, who is responsible for Waterbody System (the Reach file) user
support.
Date: 04-06-92 (09:54)
To: ALL
From: BILL COOTER
Subj: RIGHT ON KANSAS!!
Conf: WATERBODY (3)
Number: 178 of 181
Refer#: NONE
Read: (N/A)
Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Read Type: GENERAL (+)
Congratulations to the State of Kansas! They recently used the BBS to upload the final versions
of their PC WBS files to start the series of validation checks needed to add this new
information to the national WBS database. Kansas broke the whole thundering herd of about
15 data files into three zipped files and one spillover file. They started all the upload filenames
with a KS (e.g., KSWBS5.ZIP) and then notified us that the files were on the board. States
uploading their WBS files should also mail or FAX us the submittal form, as we would like to
leave a paper trail that we are, in fact, validating the set of files each State really wants us to
work with. This system works very well. If other States want to use this technique — RIGHT
ON! You can upload files to our WBS SIG or to the main BBS section (uploads to our own SIG
preferred). Leave me a message telling me that you have uploaded the file. And once again,
good work KANSAS!!!
[Jack Clifford of the Monitoring Branch has informed us that the necessary submittal form can be
downloaded from the SIG, filled out, signed, and mailed or faxed in. -eds.]
Video Review
Drinking Water Video Now Available
A new 27-minute video on drinking water issues is available from the League of Women
Voters of Michigan. "Drinking Water: Quality on Tap" comes with a 46-page study guide to
help stimulate discussion and 100 informational brochures for handouts. The video program is
ideal for libraries, schools, community groups, environmental organizations, water utilities,
and government agencies—anyone who wants an easy-to-understand discussion of drinking
water issues. Viewers learn where drinking water comes from, how it gets treated and
delivered, how government regulates drinking water, what types of home water treatment
devices are available, and how citizens can get involved. Gary Sandy from the television series
"WKRP in Cincinnati" is host for the program.
The video arrives in time for National Drinking Water Week (May 3-9,1992) and Clean Water
Month (October 1992), great times to focus on the issue of safe drinking water.
Funding for production and promotion of "Drinking Water: Quality on Tap" was provided by
the U.S. EPA and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
22
-------
To order a copy of the video, with accompanying educational materials, send a $40 check to:
League of Women Voters of Michigan, 200 Museum Dr., Lansing, MI 48933.
[For more information, contact Cindy Sanford, LWVEF, 1730 M St., NW, Washington, DC 20036.]
Announcements
EPA Develops 319 Grant Tracking System
EPA's Assessment and Watershed Protection Division has recently developed a
computer-based tracking system for regions and states to use for their 319(h) nonpoint source
grants projects. The system tracks the essential programmatic, financial, task, and milestone
information that managers need to determine a project's progress and effectiveness.
The system is located on the EPA mainframe and can be accessed via a PC with a modem.
Users must have an approved user ID and account, which can be obtained by calling the
NTIS/NCC coordinator at (703) 487-4808.
A unique feature of the system is the capability for any user to browse the database. This
browse capability gives the system a technology transfer potential among regions and states.
A users' group consisting of regional and state representatives will monitor the system's
performance, discuss and review proposed enhancements, and provide an ongoing framework
for overall management of the system.
[For more'information, contact Don Kunkowski, AWPD, WH-553, U.S. EPA, 401 MSt., SH{ Washington,
DC 20460.]
May Is American Wetlands Month
Following the success of the first American Wetlands Month in 1991, American Wetlands
Month 1992 is the continuation of a long-term effort to support the nation's wetlands and the
organizations that work year 'round to protect them. EPA and the Terrene Institute have
formed a partnership to establish May as American Wetlands Month. Both organizations fully
encourage this effort, but budget and staff limitations dictate that other organizations join in
supporting the development of American Wetlands Month. Information packets have been
sent to organizations across the country. The packets request sponsorship in exchange for the
potential benefits the programs offer in terms of increasing public awareness and appreciation
for the values and functions of wetlands.
[For more information, contact the Wetlands Hotline (800) 832-7828 or Jennifer Paugh, Terrene Institute,
(202) 833-8317.]
319(h) Wetland/Riparian Projects Summary Issued
A brief (55-page) summary document of FY 1990 and 1991 section 319(h) projects that contain
wetland or riparian components is now available. The report is organized into five sections:
restoration and protection projects; project administration, education and technical training;
constructed wetlands projects; and other projects of interest. To obtain a copy, please contact
the U.S. EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828.
Loren Eisley Author of The Starfish Parable
EDITOR'S NOTE: Roger Dean, NPS Coordinator in EPA's Region VIII, writes to inform us that
the Starfish Parable, our Commentary for Issue #19 (March 1992) was originally published in
Loren Eisely's book The Star Thrower. Thanks for the information, Roger.
23
-------
Datebook
This DATEBOOK has been assembled with the cooperation of our readers and the
Conservation Technology Information Center, 1220 Potter Dr., Rm. 170, West Lafayette, IN
47906-1334. If there is a meeting or event that you would like placed in the DATEBOOK,
contact the NPS NEWS-NOTES editors. Due to an irregular printing schedule, notices should
be in our hands at least two months in advance to ensure timely publication.
MEETINGS AND EVENTS
1992
April
May
26-29 1st International Conference on Groundwater Ecology, Tampa, FL. Contact: American Water
Resources Assoc., 5410 Grosvenor Lane, #200, Bethesda, MD 20814-2192. (301) 493-8600. FAX
493-5844. Sponsored by U.S. EPA, the American Water Resources Association, and the
Ecological Society of America. Many registration options available; register by 3/27 for
lowest cost. Call Sheraton Grand Hotel (813) 286-4400 for rooms. Sessions include: EPA's
Perspective, Groundwater Ecology Overview, Demonstrating the Ecological Connectivity
Between the Channel and the Floodplain Aquifers in Gravel-Bed Rivers, Groundwater
Faunas at Riverine Sites Receiving Treated Sewage Effluent, etc.
6-8 Enhancing the States'Lake Management Programs: Strengthening State and Local Interactions,
Chicago, IL. Contact: Bob Kirschner, Northeastern IL Planning Comm., Natural Resource
Dept., 400 W.Madison St., Room 200, Chicago, IL 60606. (312) 454-0400. Topics planned
include: Building links among state lake associations and environmental agencies, state lake
association roles in developing state-sponsored lake programs, integrating state and local
lake and watershed protection programs. Conference is sponsored by the U.S.EPA, Clean
Lakes Program, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, and the North American Lake
Management Society.
9-13 Sixth National Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, NV. Contact: National Well Water Assoc.,
6375 Riverside Dr., Dublin, OH 43107. (614) 761-1711.
19-22 Successful Mine Reclamation: What Works, Reno, NV. Contact: Reclamation Conference Chair,
NV Mining Association, 5250 South Virginia St., Suite 220, Reno, NV 89502. (702) 829-2121.
FAX 829-2148. Success stories, regulatory requirements, innovative field practices, research
and development, post mining land uses, cyanide management, reclamation permitting, acid
mine drainage, revegetation, post-ming hydrology, mine tours.
27-28 West Virginia Clean Lakes Workshop, Parkersburg, WV. Contact: Lisa Grayson, JT&A, 1000
Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 833-3380. FAX 466-8554. The first day of
the workshop will be held at the Holiday Inn in Parkersburg. On the second day, participants
will be taken by bus to nearby Mountwood Park—the site of WV's first federally funded
Clean Lakes Project. Session topics will include lake restoration techniques, watershed
management, citizen participation, activities of the North American Lake Management
Society, specific WV lake projects, and an overview of EPA's Clean Lakes Program. The
workshop will also include exhibits featuring services and equipment available for lake
projects.
27-29 Forest Practices and Water Quality Workshop, Green Bay, WI. Contact: Edward Eckert, Forest
Resource Planner, Forest Management Division, MI Dept. of Natural Resources, PO Box
30028, Lansing, MI 48909. (517) 335-3351. Sponsored by the Lake States Forestry Alliance.
Purpose: To develop ways of properly addressing the intent of the CWA as directed at timber
harvesting and its effects on groundwater and surface water quality in MI, MN, WI.
28-30 Clinch-Powell River Basins Conference, Harrogate, TN. Contact: Andrew Barrass, TN NPS
Program, 150 9th Ave.N, TERRA Bldg. 5th Floor, Nashville, TN 37243-1534. (615) 741-7883.
FAX 741-4608. Bi-state conference (VA and TN) on protecting the natural resources of the
area.
24
-------
Datebook (Continued)
1992
May
31-6/3
June
July
Control of Wet Weather Water Quality Problems, Indianapolis, IN. Contact: James Courchaine,
DEP, 1 Winter St., Boston, MA 02108. (617) 292-7528.
3-4 Urban Runoff Training Workshop, Chicago, IL. Contact: Lisa Grayson, / Harvey Olem, Terrene
Institute, 1000 Connecticut Ave., Suite 802, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 833-3380. The
purpose of this workshop is to address the widespread need for information and material on
local storm water quality program implementation. Topics will be resource protection,
education and training efforts as program components, and urban runoff research. The
material covered in this workshop will relate stormwater quality program implementation to
§319 opportunities and NPDES. In addition, the material will help states develop their coastal
NPS programs. The workshop is sponsored by EPA Region 5 Water Division, Terrene
Institute and EPA's Center for Environmental Research Information.
15-17 Remote Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments, New Orleans, LA. Contact: Nancy
Wallman, ERIM/Marine Environment Conf., PO Box 134001, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-4001. (313)
994-1200. Theme: "Needs and Solutions for Pollution Monitoring, Control and Abatement."
15-17 Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s, Boulder,
CO. Contact: Katherine Taylor, Campus Box 401, Boulder, CO 80309-0401. (303) 492-1288.
Meeting will be held in conjunction with the Rocky Mountain Groundwater Conference and
will be addressed both legal and engineering issues.
24-26 Partnerships Protecting Mississippi River Resources, St. Peters, MO. Contact: Ross Braun, / Dave
King, Soil and Water Conservation Society, West Northcentral Region, (314) 724-2237.
25-26 Environmental Planning & Growth Management Symposium: "Environmental Issues and Policies in
Coastal Georgia", St. Simons Island, GA. Contact: David Kylar, Coastal GA Regional
Development Center, PO Box 1917, Brunswick, GA 31521. (912) 264-7363. FAX 262-2313.
Rooms and meals available at nominal cost. Two-day symposium covering a wide variety of
resources, programs, and issues: wetlands, water quality, endangered species, marshland
protection, erosion control, environmental audits.
28-7/1 Urban and Agricultural Water Reuse, Orlando, FL. Contact: Salvadore D'Angelo, Boyle
Engineering Corp., 320 East South St., Orlando, FL 32801. (407) 425-1100.
28-7/2 National Forum on Water Management Policy, Washington, DC. Contact: Martin Reuss, HQ, US
Army Corps of Engineers, Office of History, Kingman Bldg., Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5577.
(703) 355-3560.
23 12th Milan No-Till Field Day, Milan, TN. Contact: John Bradley, Superintendent, Milan
Experiment Station, 205 Ellington Dr., Milan, TN 38358. (901) 686-7362. The largest event of
its kind. In 1991, 6,000 people from 31 states and 16 countries attended. Features tours,
demonstrations, research reports, educational booths and equipment displays.
August
2-5 Water Forum '92: Saving A Threatened Resource, Baltimore, MD. Contact: ASCE Conference
Dept, 345 E. 47 St, New York, NY 10017. (800) 548-ASCE.
9-12 Resource Management in a Dynamic World: 47th Annual Meeting of the Soil and Water
Conservation Society, Baltimore, MD. Contact: Tony Vrana / Tim Kautza, SWCS, 7515
Northeast Ankeny Rd., Ankeny, IA 50021-9764. (515) 289-2331. Emphasizes the role human
resources play in using and managing natural resources. Three sub-themes are:
environmental values, economics, and policy.
25
-------
Datebook (Continued)
1992
September
1-3
13-17
13-17
13-17
20-24
October
1-2
17-22
November
24-25
December
14-15
3rd National Meeting: Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, Las Vegas, NV. Contact: Patti
Morris, Office of Science & Technology, U.S. EPA (WH-585), 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC
20460. (202) 260-9830. Theme: Fiscal Year 1994-1996 Water Quality Standards Priorities.
National RCWP Symposium: Ten Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution: The RCWP
Experience, Orlando, FL. Contact: Lisa Grayson, Terrene Institute, 1000 Connecticut Ave., NW,
Suite 802, Washington, DC 20036. (202) 833-3380. Symposium offers the opportunity to
present and discuss the outcome of projects related to the 10-year experimental Rural Clean
Water Program. Hosted by the South Florida Water Management District with U.S.EPA,
ASCS, SCS, and Extension Service.
The Year 2000: Will We Be Ready Technically? Socially? Politically? 1992 Annual Meeting of the
American Fisheries Society, Rapid City, SD. Contact: Bud Griswold, National Sea Grant
Program, 1335 East-West Highway, Room 5216, Silver Spring, MD 20910. (301) 427-2431.
Fourth International Wetlands Conference, Columbus, OH. Contact: William Mitsch, School of
Natural Resources, OSU, 2021 Coffey Rd., Columbus, OH 53210. (614) 292-9774.
Surface Water Quality and Ecology: 1992 Annual Water Environment Federation Conference, New
Orleans, LA. Contact: Maureen Novotne, WEF Technical Services, 601 Wythe St., Alexandria,
VA 22314-1994. (703) 684-2400.
3rd Annual Utah Nonpoint Source Water Quality Conference, Ogden, UT. Contact: Jack Wilbur,
Utah Dept. of Agriculture, Environmental Quality Section, 350 N. Redwood Rd., Salt Lake
City, UT 84116. (801) 538-7098. Theme: Urban Runoff and Stormwater Management.
Interdisciplinary Approaches in Hydrology and Hydrogeology, Portland, OR. Contact: Helen
Klose, American Instit. of Hydrology, 3416 University Ave., SW, Minneapolis, MN
55414-3328. (612) 379-1030.
Stormwater Management and Combined Sewer Overflow Technology Transfer Seminar, Contact: Ms.
B. Pasian, Conference Secretary, Wastewater Technology Center, PO Box 5068, Burlington,
Ontario L7R 4L7. (416) 336-4588. FAX 336-4765.
6th National Drainage Symposium, Nashville, TN. Contact: AS AE, 2950 Niles Rd, St Joseph, MI
49085-9659.
Calls For Papers — Deadlines
1992
May
29 Symposium on Geographic Information Systems and Water Resources, March 14-18,1993, Mobile,
AL. Contact: AWRA, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 220, Bethesda, MD 20814-2192. (301)
493-8600. Abstracts due by May 29,1992.
June
15 First International IAWPRC Specialized Conference on Diffuse (Nonpoint Source) Pollution: Sources,
Prevention, Impact and Abatement, September 20-24,1993, Chicago, IL. Contact: Dr. Vladimir
Novotny, IAWPRC Conference, Dept.Civil & Envir.Engineering, Marquette University, 1515
West Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI53223. (414) 288-3524. FAX 288-7082. Submit abstracts
by June 15,1992. Topics: pollutant loads and impact of non-urban land use activities,
atmospheric deposition and surface water, alternative policy instruments, etc. Call or write
for complete list.
26
-------
The Coupon
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon #20
(Clip or Photocopy and Mail or FAX this coupon to us)
Our Mailing Address: NPS News-Notes (WH-553), Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
Our Fax Number: NPS News-Notes, (202) 260-1517
Use this Coupon to:
(check one or more) Q Share your Clean Water Experiences, OR
~ Ask for Information, OR
Q Make a Suggestion
Write your story, ask your question, or make your suggestions here:
Attach additional pages if necessary.
L.
27~
Q I want the revised NPS/BBS Users' Manual. Please send me a copy.
G Please add my name to the mailing list to receive News-Notes.
Your Name:
Organization:
Address:
City/State: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
-------
nonpoint sources of water pollution. NPS pollution comes from many sources and is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and
• through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural poRutahfe and pollutants resulting from humanaetlv-
; Ity, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers,. wetlands, opastal watfirs and groun^ Js normally associated with '
agricultural, silviculturaj, mining and urbanrunoff. Hydrologic mdcfifkattoriis a form of NPS pollution'Mich often adversely effects
the biological integrity of surface waters. s ^ \ " s ; ^
MPS NEWS-NOTES\s publishedunder the authority of section 319(l)ofthe Clean Water Act by the Assessment and Watershed "
Protection Divtsion- •>¦ y ..
Moving?
Send present mailing label
and new address including
zip code to:
NPS News-Notes (WH-553)
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
First Class
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 328
Merrifield, VA
Printed on recycled paper
------- |