August/September 1995
#42
Nonpoint Source
News-Notes
The Condition of the Water-Related Environment
The Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
The Ecological Management & Restoration of Watersheds
Commentary
Lessons Learned from the Local Level
by Ann Beier, Umatilla Basin Watershed Council Coordinator
After working on water issues at EPA in Washington, D.C., for six years, I moved to eastern
Oregon, where I've spent the past six months working for a local watershed council. Since then,
a number of folks have asked for my perspective comparing watershed issues at the local and
federal levels.
I feel very fortunate to be in the position that I am. Oregon is perhaps unique among the states
in that a state law authorizes the creation of local watershed councils. Perhaps more important,
Oregon provides significant financial support to these councils and to watershed projects. The
state commitment is matched by the local government effort. Watershed councils work to
educate residents and to accomplish restoration and protection of watersheds at a local level. To
do this, they need technical expertise, funding, and in some cases, regulatory provisions, from
federal and state agencies.
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
Commentary
Lessons from the Local Level 1
Notes on The National Scene
Cooperative Program Testing the (Well) Waters 2
Farm*A*Syst, Home*A*Syst Update 3
Feds Must Recycle NPS Pollutant, Anti-freeze 4
Urban Runoff Notes
"Rain Gardens" Control Residential Runoff 5
Card Carrying Contractors Control Construction Compliance .... 7
"Green" Golf Course Shows Improving Water Quality 8
Notes on The Agricultural Environment
Working with Producers to Develop Localized BMPs 8
Virginia Poultry Companies Requiring Nutrient Management
Plans 10
Analysis Reveals Minimal NPS Impacts to Wells 10
News From The States, Tribes, and Localities
Ohio Tree Planting Program Aids Landowners 11
EPA, University of Maryland Run Financial Center 12
Sinkyone Intertribal Park Upgrades Watershed 13
Austin, TX's Save Our Springs Ordinance Challenged 13
In Virginia, 319 Grant Funds Constructed Wetland to Treat
Effluent from Privy 15
Puget Sound Special Districts to Clean Up Shellfish Beds 16
Technical Notes
Poster Presentation Abstracts Address Pesticdes 17
STORET Database Protoype on the Road Again 19
Notes on Environmental Education
College-level Pollution Prevention Tool 20
No Laughing Matter: SWCS Comic Books on NPS 20
Envirothon Teams Win on Soils Smarts 20
Shedd Aquarium Opens NPS Exhibits 22
NPS Electronic Bulletin Board News 22
EPA Water Program Goes Online 23
Reviews and Announcements
Water Video Wins Award 23
Environmental Patriarch Calls for Restoration 23
Report Targets Agricultural-Environmental Trends 24
Examining Benefits and Costs Land Protection 25
Innovative Options for Financing Bay Cleanup 26
Rhode Island's Marina BMP Manual 27
Study Guide on NPS Impacts on Aquatic Life 28
Directory of National Urban Watershed Projects 28
Stormwater Management Methods Manual 29
DATEBOOK 29
THE COUPON 31
Ali issues of News-Notes are stored in downloadable files on the NPS Electronic Bulletin Board System. Additionally, the NPS BBS
contains a searchable database that allows the user to search for and retrieve News-Notes articles on specific topics. To access the
database from the main menu, type OPEN. See page 22 for log-on information.
-------
Here are some of the lessons I've learned in my short time working for the Umatilla Basin
Watershed Council.
¦ First, don't oversimplify. Watershed issues are complex. Most watershed problems
involve water, land, and other resources. More significantly, watershed issues involve
people and how they manage and use those resources. When we deal with problems agency
by agency or program by program, we sometimes oversimplify the issues. Particularly at the
federal level, we tend to break off a little piece of the problem to analyze and then come up
with a solution that addresses only that particular component. At the local level, it is easier
to bring together the resource agencies and resource users to develop a more comprehensive
strategy.
¦ Second, cooperation is key to successful watershed projects. The Umatilla Basin
Watershed Council is fortunate to have support from a number of federal, state, tribal, and
local agencies that have a long history of working together. We meet monthly for coffee and
informal discussions where we resolve issues, come up with joint projects, establish trust,
and learn about the operations of other agency programs.
¦ Third, seek out new allies. With agencies working cooperatively, there is an opportunity
to reach out to diverse interest groups. We are tapping into local producer networks (Oregon
Cattlemen, the Wheat League) as well as resource protection groups like Trout Unlimited.
The local media are among our most valuable allies.
¦ Fourth, educate people about their watershed. I've had a number of opportunities to get
out and talk to folks about watershed health. The more people understand the importance of
water resources, the more they will support projects and funding. We built this support by
holding a tour of our watershed from the headwaters in the national forest to the confluence
with the Columbia River. We also spent half a day showing our state representative some
in-stream projects in the Basin.
¦ Fifth, money talks. After they learn about local water resources, landowners may be
interested in restoration activities. However, nothing seems to come cheap when working
with landowners to change practices. Although most landowners want to do the right thing,
many cannot afford the investment. Some landowners in our Basin entered into long-term
agreements with local resource agencies to restore riparian habitat when incentives like
fencing materials and labor were provided.
My experience in the Umatilla Basin has allowed me to see how efficiently and effectively
things can be done at the local level, but I see, too, that water issues are so complex that all
levels of government and a variety of private entities need to work together to address them.
Notes on the National Scene
Cooperative Program
Testing the (Well) Waters
Do you know when your drinking water was last tested for contaminants? For many
homeowners in rural areas who rely on private wells, the answer is when they purchased their
homes. Knowing what to test for and where to find affordable testing are two obstacles
homeowners face in protecting their drinking water supplies. A cooperative effort between the
Water Quality Laboratory of Heidelberg College in Tiffin, Ohio, and the American Farm Bureau
Federation is providing help — though a planned, cost-effective water testing program.
The impetus for the Cooperative Private Well Testing Program dates from a 1986 American
Farm Bureau Federation National Leadership Conference that revealed a lack of available well
water data. According to Jim Porterfield, a natural resource specialist with the American Farm
Bureau Federation, "Most states had almost no data on well water quality at a time when
groundwater policies were being debated in the mid-1980s." Representatives of the Ohio Farm
Bureau were concerned about what they learned at the conference and approached Dave Baker
of Ohio's Heidelberg College Water Quality Laboratory for assistance in conducting a well
water testing program.
Lessons Learned
From the Local
Level
(continued)
2 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
Cooperative
Program
Testing the (Well)
Waters
(continued)
Now the Cooperative Private Well Testing Program has expanded from its Ohio origin and is
conducted throughout the nation on a county or regional basis with the assistance of one or
more local sponsoring organizations. Typically, county Farm Bureau offices, soil and water
conservation districts, and county Extension offices serve as sponsors. The sponsoring
organization plans, advertises, oversees, and collects fees for the program.
Several affordable water testing packages are offered. The nitrate package tests for nitrate,
nitrite, ammonia, chloride, sulfate, soluble phosphorus, silica, and specific conductivity, and
provides well owners with an overall picture of their well water quality for approximately $12.
Screening for four different types of pesticides is available for $15 per test; and a package that
tests for 23 metals, including lead and arsenic, for $50. Screening for volatile organic chemicals
rounds out the testing program with a package that tests for 46 substances, such as petroleum
products and solvents, for $25.
The Heidelberg College Water Quality Laboratory provides test kits to the sponsoring agencies.
Local residents purchase the kits and collect their own water samples, returning them to
designated drop-off points. If the sponsor wants the lab to create maps indicating areas of
elevated nitrate and pesticide concentrations, then a map is placed at each collection site for
participants to mark the approximate location of their wells.
The sponsoring agency collects, packages, and returns the test kits to the lab in Ohio. Within
four weeks, participants receive a copy of their well's analysis with a letter relating the results
to existing primary and secondary drinking water standards or health advisory levels. The
sponsoring agency receives a summary of test results, although the summary is designed to
protect the privacy of participants. The lab also creates nitrate and pesticide indicator maps for
sponsors who elect this option. Sponsors often use the maps at follow-up meetings to discuss
overall results, recommend courses of action for correcting problems, and answer questions.
Since 1987, when the Cooperative Private Well Testing Program began, over 43,000 residents in
372 counties and 17 states have submitted water samples to the Heidelberg College Water
Quality Laboratory for testing. Although available to localities across the nation, a five-state
midwestern region, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, and West Virginia, has had the
most participation.
The cooperative well testing program provides an affordable avenue for private well owners to
ensure the safety of their drinking water. Porterfield adds, "These aggregate data are very
useful in sorting through state policy options as well as benefiting the individual."
Organizations interested in sponsoring the program in their area can obtain a brochure and an
informational video from the American Farm Bureau Federation.
[For a free brochure on the Cooperative Private Well Testing Program, or a copy of the 11-minute video for
$15, contact Jim Porterfield, American Farm Bureau Federation, 225 Touhy Avenue, Park Ridge, IL 60068.
Phone: (312) 399-5782, For more information on water testing methods, contact Dave Baker or Nancy
Creamer at the Water Quality Laboratory, Heidelberg College, 310 East Market Street, Tiffin, OH 44883.
Phone: (419) 448-2198.]
Preventing Rural Water Pollution:
FARM*A *SYST and HOME*A *SYST
Interest in expanding the Farm*A*Syst National Program is high and continues to grow.
Both the Farm Assessment (Farm*A*Syst) and Home Assessment (Home*A*Syst) systems are
cost-effective, voluntary pollution prevention programs. Each one provides pollution risk
assessment tools and a flexible implementation framework. Rural residents use assessment
worksheets to identify pollution risks from a wide range of farm and home structures and
management practices, then use fact sheets and technical referrals to develop site-specific,
voluntary action plans to prevent pollution.
Because Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst have simple yet versatile formats, agencies, private
sector organizations, and schools can easily adapt them to whole-farm and home
environmental risk management needs. They have been used effectively as a stand-alone
program and as part of targeted water quality projects.
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 199S, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 3
-------
State Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst coordinators are surveyed each year about the status of
their programs. So far, 50 states have named Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst Program
coordinators; 25 states have completed modification of assessment materials; and 16 states,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin and Pacific Islands are developing assessment materials. In all more
than 12,000 farmstead pollution risk assessments have been conducted, and pilot evaluations
have been completed in 10 states.
The most common high risks identified in farmstead assessments in pilot projects involving 214
sites in three states are petroleum handling and storage, pesticide handling and storage,
household wastewater disposal, and well design and management.
Participants of pilot evaluations in the United States and Canada say the program is useful and
that they would recommend it to their neighbors. Participants say they can nearly always
identify one or more high risks, make low-cost management changes almost immediately, and
plan to make higher costing structural changes in the future.
Integration with Other Programs
Farm*A*Syst integrates the resources of all levels of government and the private sector to
develop proactive, cooperative programs to address pollution concerns. The flexibility of
Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst is illustrated by the extent to which they have been integrated
into other programs. Farm*A*Syst is being used in more than 45 of the 90 USDA Hydrologic
Units and Water Quality Demonstration Projects, and in 23 state nonpoint source pollution
programs using EPA section 319 funding. The program is also used in conjunction with
Resource Conservation and Development projects and Pub. L. 566 watershed plans. Spanish
translations of the program are being developed along with other curriculum planning, and
both AmeriCorps staff and the private sector have or will be involved in Farm*A*Syst program
delivery.
[For more information on Farm*A*Syst and Home'A'Syst, contact the Farm'A'Syst National program,
B142 Steenbock Library, 550 Babcock Drive, Madison, Wi 53706-1293]
Federal Government Recycling Common NPS Contaminant —
Engine Coolants
Effective May 1, 1996, all federal agencies and state and local agencies using federal funds are
required to use recycled engine coolant and to purchase other designated items made from
recycled materials.
"The Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products Containing Recovered Materials;
the Final Rule" was published in the Federal Register on May 1,1995. The guideline lists 19 new
items and incorporates five previously designated items. Engine coolants, a potential
contaminant in urban runoff, are on the list.
Engine coolants provide protection against boiling, freezing, and corrosion, but in use they lose
some measure of these functions from the accumulation of contaminants and the depletion of
additives such as corrosion inhibitors. The recycling process attempts to restore these functions
to standards specified for unused coolant.
Annually, more than 200 million gallons of engine coolant are sold in the United States. After
purchase, engine coolant is diluted 50 percent with water before being added to an engine.
Thus, as many as 400 million gallons of spent engine coolant mixtures may require disposal
each year. If not recycled, the spent coolant is usually disposed of in a sewage treatment system
or managed as a hazardous waste. Often it is dumped on the ground or into storm sewers
where it finds its way into surface water.
According to Rod Frederick, Urban Sources Section Chief of the Nonpoint Source Control
Branch of EPA, "The effect of this rule is expected to be an increase in the availability of drop-off
centers for recycling used antifreeze. This method is a much better alternative than flushing it to
sewage treatment plants or placing it in indefinite storage."
[For more information, contact the RCRA Hotline 1-(800) 424-9346.]
Preventing Rural
Water Pollution:
FARM*A*SYST
and
HOME*A*SYST
(continued)
4 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 199S, ISSUE #42
-------
Urban Runoff Notes
Maryland Developer Grows "Rain Gardens"
to Control Residential Runoff
Somerset, an 80-acre site being developed into 199 homes on 10,000-square-foot lots, with prices
starting around $160,000, sounds like a typical modern subdivision — that is, until you see it.
When you drive into Somerset in Prince George's County, Maryland, you notice something
different. The roads blend into grassed swales. Homes sit on large lots at refreshing angles, and
each home has carefully placed landscaping. The subdivision creates a sharp contrast with the
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks that frame neighboring communities. It is difficult, at first, to
identify what makes Somerset so different, but it revolves around a special feature known as
Rain Gardens.
Rain Gardens — A Pilot at Somerset
Rain Gardens are an alternative stormwater management practice being applied as a pilot
project at Somerset. The Gardens are a combination of grasses, shrubs, and trees that serve as
ground cover, a middle story, and a canopy in simulation of a forest environment. The shallow,
landscaped gardens manage stormwater through bioretention, combining physical, biological,
and chemical processes to maximize pollutant removal. The settling of sediments in shallow
pool areas, the natural processes of plants and microbes, and chemical reactions occurring in the
soil allow the gardens to absorb and purify stormwater runoff. Rain Gardens restore the
functions of wooded wetlands removed by land development and the construction of
conventional dry and wet BMP ponds.
Each Somerset lot has a Rain Garden, 300 to 400 square feet in size. The gardens are located at
low points on the lots and take different shapes. A six-inch basin excavated in each garden
allows water to pool on top of a layer of mulch for no more than 48 hours after a rain event.
Originally it was believed that evapotranspiration would be a primary mechanism for moving
water out of the system, but, says Larry Coffman, associate director for programs and planning
with the Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources, "infiltration turns
out to be the most significant mechanism for dewatering the system." Because the
evapotranspiration rate exceeds the amount of precipitation in the region during the summer
months, the plants selected for the Rain Garden must tolerate both wet and dry conditions.
How It All Began
The use of bioretention for stormwater management originated at commercial and industrial
sites where space is limited, and the installation and maintenance of conventional BMPs, such
as oil and water separators and stormwater ponds, is expensive. An effort was made at these
sites to make landscaped areas more functional by lowering elevation, allowing water to pool
for a short time before infiltrating the soil.
The residential application of bioretention for stormwater management took shape at a
conference when developer Dick Brinker approached Coffman to discuss replacing the four
conventional BMP ponds required at Somerset with bioretention facilities. Although plans for
Somerset had already been drawn, Coffman, Brinker, and Brinker's daughter Theresa, president
of the TABCO land development company, went back to the drawing board. They replaced
conventional BMP ponds, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks with bioretention gardens on each lot,
and created open drainage swales and wider roads to accommodate pedestrian traffic.
The result was a reduction in infrastructure and construction costs that would facilitate the
cost-effective development of the subdivision, attempts at which had ended in bankruptcy on
three previous occasions. Hanifin Associates, consultants to Prince George's County, dubbed the
stormwater facilities "Rain Gardens." Coffman credits TABCO with providing the impetus for
the Rain Gardens pilot, saying, "I don't think that we could have done it without the support of
the developer. They were committed to the concept as a more environmentally sensitive — and
less expensive way — to develop the site."
A Cost Advantage
Coffman worked with local agencies to develop the Rain Gardens plan for Somerset. The local
transportation department required that the roads be constructed 10 feet wider than usual
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 5
-------
Maryland
Developer Grows
"Rain Gardens"
to Control
Residential Runoff
(continued)
Bioretention Manual
Available
Copies of the "Prince George's
County Design Manual for Use
of Bioretention in Stormwater
Management" are currently
available. The manual, published in
June 1993, provides information on
bioretention, specifically grading;
planting; soil, mulch, and plant
material guidelines; maintenance;
and runoff control. Although it was
produced with commercial and
industrial applications of
bioretention in mind, information
contained in the manual can be
adapted to residential applications.
To obtain a copy of the manual,
send $20 to the Prince George's
County Department of
Environmental Resources, 9400
Peppercorn Place, Suite 600,
Landover, MD 20785.
because of concern that people would park cars along the road and potentially damage the
grass swale drainageways. The extra road surface, combined with a network of trails, will serve
as a walkway through the community. Even with this added expense, Rain Gardens is proving
to be a cost-effective stormwater management strategy. Each garden costs approximately $500:
$150 for excavation and $350 for plants. Approximately $100,000 will be required to fully
implement Rain Gardens at Somerset, in comparison to a cost of nearly $400,000, not including
the expense of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, for the conventional BMP ponds originally planned.
Somerset's naturally sandy soils are providing another cost savings, serving as the sand base
specified by the Rain Garden design to allow infiltration. Topsoil from excavated areas on-site is
being applied in the gardens and will provide wet storage during rainfall events. The use of
Rain Gardens as stormwater management facilities also offers room for TABCO to add six or
seven lots to Somerset, aiding the developer by generating additional revenue to offset costs.
The gardens may even be a key to successful sales. Theresa Brinker observes, "Sales are above
average for that general market corridor. Buyers perceive the gardens as an added value to their
home." Additional cost savings for future Rain Garden applications may be realized through a
waiver of wetland impact fees and requirements for street trees and landscaping.
In contrast to the cost-effectiveness of Rain Gardens, conventional BMP ponds designed to
control 2-, 10-, and 100-year storms are often prohibitively expensive. In addition, stream
degradation and streambank erosion can continue to occur with these types of BMPs. Rain
Gardens are designed to mimic predevelopment conditions and should be able to maintain the
predevelopment hydrograph for all storm events, Coffman says. "We think under some
circumstances it is even possible that if you have enough space and the right soils, you can
bring the hydrograph back down to levels below predevelopment so that you get less runoff
from the developed site than you would from a forested condition."
Rain Gardens also provide recharge for adjacent streams and help retain baseflow in wetlands.
Coffman emphasizes, however, that Rain Gardens are a BMP tool that may need to be modified
in areas where infiltration is undesirable, such as areas in close proximity to sensitive recharge
zones or those with unstable soil conditions. In these situations, Rain Gardens would have to be
implemented as a filtration — rather than an infiltration — system, allowing water to "biofilter"
through the gardens into an underdrain and to a discharge point.
Homeowners Maintain Stormwater Facilities
Homeowners play a critical role in maintaining the function of Rain Gardens. They learn the
purpose of their gardens through an informational brochure and manual. The manual, adapted
from the "Prince George's County Design Manual for Use of Bioretention in
Stormwater Management" provides information on plants that can be used in
Rain Gardens, and describes how to specialize the gardens to enhance habitat
for wildlife, or to add color and texture. Prince George's County provided
funding for the development of the brochure and manual and plans to hold
workshops with the residents of Somerset on subjects such as garden
maintenance and lawn care.
Each Somerset homeowner signs an agreement acknowledging that they are
aware of the function of the bioretention facilities. The Home Owner's
Association maintains the common area Rain Gardens and ensures that
homeowners maintain their individual gardens. The gardens were designed so
that they do not require fertilizer or pesticides. Maintenance consists of
weeding, pruning, and replacing plants.
By eliminating the public burden of maintaining stormwater management
ponds and pipe systems, Coffman hopes to obtain a 50 percent reduction in
stormwater taxes. This reduction could translate into a cost savings of $100 to
$200 per year for county residents who maintain Rain Gardens.
Looking Forward
Prince George's County will use $150,000 of EPA Section 319 funds to monitor
surface and groundwater quality at Somerset over the next two years. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service will help monitor stream channels. Physical,
biological, and chemical data will be used to compare the application of Rain
Gardens in Somerset with a subdivision using conventional BMPs.
6 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
Maryland
Developer Grows
"Rain Gardens"
to Control
Residential Runoff
(continued)
Rain Gardens are a step toward low-impact development that, according to Coffman,
"combines environmentally sensitive site design with pollution prevention to form a
comprehensive approach to water quality problems." The gardens can be applied in many
geographic areas by adapting plants suited to each region. The benefits of applying the Rain
Gardens concept for stormwater management will likely be realized in more subdivisions in the
future, driven by both their positive environmental effects and their economic advantage.
[For more information, contact Larry Coffman, Prince George's County Department of Environmental
Resources, 9400 Peppercorn Place, Suite 600, Landover, MD 20785. Phone: (301) 883-5926.]
Card Carrying Contractors Control Construction Compliance
On Maryland construction sites, crew members focus on the project schedule, material orders,
the condition of equipment, safety, and who has the Green Card.
Since 1980, possession of a Green Card has meant that a worker has attended the Green Card
erosion and sediment control training seminar and successfully completed the certification
exam. To ensure that quality erosion and sediment control is implemented on construction
projects, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) requires that at least one person
on every construction site possess a Green Card.
More than 7,000 people have been certified in erosion and sediment control since the inception
of the program.
How to Get Green
Two environmental specialists with the MDE conduct the free 3.5 hour Green Card training
seminars. Personnel in several Maryland counties have also been certified by MDE trainers to
provide the training in their jurisdictions. Centered around erosion control and the negative
impacts of sedimentation, the training alerts participants to potential erosion issues such as
sediment flow to a storm drain inlet and how inlet protection is used as a control measure.
On-site training is provided by request for companies with 15 or more employees. Maryland
field offices of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Maryland Conservation
Districts provide input to the training program.
Offered during the winter months at a time when the participants' workload is light, the
program caters primarily to earth-moving contractors, but it has also been conducted for
private building companies, land development and engineering companies, the National Parks
Service, and others.
In 1995,1,350 people have been certified as a result of 35 seminars. Currently, MDE does not
require recertification, although many Green Card holders attend additional training seminars
to update their skills.
Erosion and Sediment Inspection Encourages Employers
Proactive Maryland erosion and sediment control inspectors have influenced the success of the
Green Card program. Although small construction projects are not monitored closely, project
managers are still obligated to abate sediment pollution. Persistent inspectors who observe
problems at small sites encourage companies to go the extra mile to safeguard their projects
from enforcement action.
One participant is Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), a Maryland utility company that
frequently conducts projects under the 5,000 square foot or 100 cubic yard area requiring
erosion and sediment control plan approval. BGE has taken an active role in erosion and
sediment control; for example, it approached the MDE to inquire about having a staff member
certified to provide Green Card training and certification within the organization. Now BGE
trains its own employees and reports the number of individuals earning Green Cards each
quarter. BGE expanded its role in the program by coproducing a 28-minute video on erosion
and sediment control with the MDE. The cooperative effort allowed the MDE to produce a
much-needed resource at low cost.
Getting the Job Done Right
Marty Hill, a Green Card holder and the owner of Maryland's Masonry Contractors, says that
his company tries "to get as many people certified as we can, including anyone with a role in
construction involving grading, sediment control, and management of the site." Approximately
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 7
-------
20 employees of Masonry Contractors have earned Green Cards. Hill observes that the program
helps employees "understand why they are doing it [erosion control] and what they are trying
to accomplish. If you understand why you're doing it, you are more likely to do it and do it
right." Knowing what to do and how to do it right ensures proper erosion and sediment control
and strengthens communication between construction companies and local program officials.
The Maryland Green Card program offers a conduit for effective communication between state
and local officials who enforce erosion and sediment control requirements and earth-moving
contractors who implement these requirements at active construction sites. The Green Card
program has been successfully applied in Delaware as well as Maryland and may prove to be
the ideal solution for improving erosion and sediment control at urban construction projects in
other areas.
[For more information, contact Rick Trickett, Maryland Department of the Environment, 2500 Broening
Highway, Baltimore, MD 21224. Phone: (410) 631-3543.]
In Michigan, Golf Club Begins Second Year
with Steadily Improving Water
Reprinted from Water Resources Review, June 1995, published by the Water Resources Institute at
Michigan's Grand Valley State University.
While everyone's golf score may not have decreased during the 1994 golfing season, water
pollution indicators monitored at the Meadows Golf Club demonstrated a steady decline since
construction of the new golf facility began nearly four years ago.
The Meadows Golf Club, built to model sound environmental practices, finished its first year of
operation in November of 1994. Water quality monitoring by the Water Resources Institute
(WRI) indicates a steady decline in the amount of nitrates, phosphates, suspended and
dissolved solids, and ammonia exported from the golf course wetlands and into the Grand
River over the past three years.
A large part of the success in preserving water quality at the Meadows has come from land
stabilization. Vegetation buffer zones, established along sensitive wetland areas, have served in
reducing nutrient runoff into the waterways.
The Meadows has the unique ability to use the wetlands located throughout the course as
biological filters. These wetlands trap and remove nutrients that are often responsible for water
quality degradation. As an example, nitrates entering the golf course through groundwater
sources are reduced by one half before they exit into Ottawa Creek and subsequently the Grand
River.
In 1995, WRI will be working to assist the golf course in developing a management program
which will increase fertilizer and pesticide efficiency within localized areas of the course. This
approach requires the identification of individual geographic areas where fertilizers and
pesticides are more susceptible to leaching and where these materials are retained for greater
utilization. "Fertilizers and pesticides that quickly leave the system threaten the environment
and waste money," says WRI project manager Jeff Cooper. "The goal is to reduce chemical
usage while maintaining a high quality golf course and good water quality at the Meadows."
[For more information about the ongoing water quality study at the Meadows Golf Club, contact Project
Manager Jeff Cooper, Grand Valley State University, One Campus Dr., Allendale, Ml 49401. Phone: (616)
895-3271. Or contact Meadows Golf Club Superintendent Kathy Antaya at (616) 895-1005.]
Notes on the Agricultural Environment
Working with Local Producers to Develop Localized BMPs
When the Colorado legislature passed a 1990 bill protecting groundwater and the environment
from the improper use of agricultural chemicals, the challenge was to achieve this by changing
chemical use practices through education. The result is that BMPs in Colorado are now being
developed largely at the local level.
Card Carrying
Contractors
Control
Construction
Compliance
(continued)
8 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
For about two years, small groups of 10 to 15 agricultural chemical users — producers, chemical
applicators, and other experts in the local watershed — have been working together to develop
comprehensive sets of BMPs that are technically feasible, economically acceptable, and achieve
state water quality goals. The producers participating in the work groups demonstrate the
successful use of BMPs on their farms and foster support for the voluntary approach.
Said Lloyd R. Walker, an agricultural engineer, and Reagon M. W'askom, a water quality
specialist — both with Colorado State University's Extension Service — "Initially, we were
concerned that practices developed by local producers would address mainlv the status quo
with no real impact on groundwater protection. However, producers have taken an aggressive
approach toward voluntary practices, realizing that they are preferable to mandatory
regulations."
The process is a creative one. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension (CSUCE)
involves agricultural chemical users in developing and implementing BMPs that are sensitive to
local conditions.
CSUCE provides technical expertise and acts as the catalyst and driver of the process. Local
agricultural producers serving on the BMP work group act as reviewers, contributors, and
supporters of both the process and the end product.
Cooperative Extension agents facilitate the partnership and create the right climate for
productive group dynamics. The agents' first and most important task is to assemble a group of
innovative producers willing to participate in the process. "The importance of this cannot be
overemphasized," said Walker and Waskom. "The group's productivity is directly related to the
care in assembling it." The work group is limited to 15 members, drawn mostly from local
agricultural organizations (i.e., irrigation districts, soil conservation districts, etc.). Certified
organic growers and producers employing holistic resource management techniques to
production agriculture are also sought to represent alternative
approaches. Some groups also include limited participation by
nonproducer interests like crop consultants, the agricultural chemical
industry, and Natural Resources Conservation Service staff.
"The most important assets work group members bring to the process
are their experience and ties to the agricultural community. This
experience, combined with a commitment to the process of adopting
BMPs, is the key to developing localized BMPs," said Walker and
Waskom, emphasizing that the BMP work group is producer-driven,
and nonproducer interests play only a supporting role.
Tempering Research with Practicality
The group begins by exploring research-based BMPs and identifying
appropriate practices for their local circumstances. For example, a first
task may be to address nutrient management BMPs or a specific crop
for pest management BMPs. The end product is a set of practices that
tempers research-based knowledge with the practical realities faced by
producers.
As the BMPs are reviewed and revised for the local area, Extension
specialists edit them and incorporate the local perspective, until
consensus is reached. Specialists challenge the local producers to think
creatively by sometimes suggesting practices outside the norm. In
turn, producers identify useful local practices overlooked by the
specialists.
The product of the deliberations, a set of local BMPs, is published as a
local BMP brochure, but the task does not end there. The next phase is
getting the localized BMPs on the ground.
As innovative producers, the work group members are usually highly
respected in the community. When they speak, other producers tend
to listen. The work group members use formal and informal settings
to share information. Word gets out through the local media,
meetings, demonstrations, and field days.
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 9
Working with
Local Producers
to Develop
Localized BMPs
(continued)
The localized BMP project has
produced the following publications:
¦ Best Management Practices for Coiorado
Agriculture: An Overview (Bulletin No.
XCM-171)
¦ Best Management Practices tor Nitrogen
Fertilization (Bulletin No. XCM-172)
¦ Best Management Practices for Irrigation
Management (Bulletin No. XCM-173)
¦ Best Management Practices for Manure
Utilization (Bulletin No. XCM-174)
¦ Best Management Practices for Phosphorus
Fertilization (Bulletin No. XCM-175)
¦ Best Management Practices for Pesticide
and Fertilizer Storage and Handling (Bulletin
No. XCM-178)
¦ Best Management Practices for Agricultural
Pesticide Use
¦ Best Management Practices for Crop Pests
¦ Best Management Practices for Private Well
Protection
¦ Best Management Practices for Irrigated
Agriculture—A Guide for Colorado
Producers Best Management Practices for
Nutrient and Irrigation Management the
San Luis Valley
To order, contact Lloyd R. Walker
Phone: (970) 491-6172
-------
Three groups are now functioning: one in the San Luis Valley is focusing on nutrients; a second
in the same local area is targeting pest management; and a third group is working on BMPs for
irrigated lands in the South Platte River Basin.
[For more information, contact Lioyd R. Walker, Extension Agricultural Engineer, Departments of Chemical
and Bioresource Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. Phone: (970)
491-6172; Fax: (970) 491-7369.]
Virginia Poultry Companies
Require Nutrient Management Plans
In a landmark initiative, the Virginia Poultry Federation has announced a new policy to protect
water quality. The four major integrated poultry companies in Virginia (WLR Foods, ROCCO,
Tyson Foods, and Perdue Farms) will require new growers in all counties to have a nutrient
management plan before beginning operation, according to Federation President John Johnson.
The industry's long-term goal is to have all growers operating with nutrient management plans,
as soon as the plans can be developed by state agencies. The Federation's previous policy
required plans only when counties called for them.
Virginia Commissioner of Agriculture J. Carlton Courter III hailed the announcement, saying,
"Farmers are good stewards of the land and water, and I think the commitment clearly
demonstrates this. These poultry producers are willing to put in writing how they will protect
the environment."
The announcement followed meetings between Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources Becky
Norton Dunlop, industry, and local government officials relating to the development of
tributary strategies for nutrient reduction in the Chesapeake Bay.
Use of nutrient management plans is a major component of efforts to restore the water quality
of the Chesapeake Bay. Under a nutrient management plan, poultry litter is tested for its
fertilizer value and applied to cropland at specific rates corresponding to crop needs. This
practice helps reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that washes off the land into the
rivers and Bay. Moira Croghan, of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,
reported that nutrient management specialists have already developed more than 1,300
site-specific nutrient management plans on 338,000 acres of cropland. Estimated nutrient use
reductions from their application equate to 8.2 million pounds of nitrogen and 8.0 million
pounds of phosphate — or roughly $3.6 million in fertilizer nutrient reduction.
Johnson added that the industry realizes that nutrient management not only helps protect
water quality, but increases farm efficiency. "This is a win-win situation where farmers can cut
costs and protect the environment. Nutrient management planning is a clear demonstration of
the good stewardship practiced by poultry producers," he said.
[For more information, contact John Johnson, Virginia Poultry Federation, P.O. Box 552, Harrisonburg, VA
22801. Phone: (703) 433-2451. Or contact Moira Croghan, Manager, Bureau of District and Landowner
Assistance, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, 203 Governor Street, Suite 206, Richmond, VA
23219-2094. Phone: (804) 786-3958.]
Well Water Analysis Reveals
Minimal Nonpoint Source Impacts
A recent analysis compiled under the joint Farm Bureau Federation/Heidelberg College
Cooperative Private Well Testing Program provides insight into rural well water quality and
factors affecting water quality in 34,759 wells and springs in a five-state midwestern region (see
this issue, page 2). Data submitted voluntarily by well owners in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Kentucky, and West Virginia were used in the analysis.
According to the Water Quality Laboratory of Heidelberg College in Tiffin, Ohio, contaminant
levels in excess of EPA Maximum Contaminant Level health standards (10 parts per million
[ppm] for nitrate-nitrogen and 3 parts per billion [ppb] for atrazine) were detected in 3.4
percent of nitrate samples and 0.1 percent of atrazine herbicide samples. The lab cites a U.S.
Geological Survey convention that suspects human influences when nitrate-nitrogen
Working with
Local Producers
to Develop
Localized BMPs
(continued)
10 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
Well Water
Analysis Reveals
Minimal Nonpoint
Source Impacts
(continued)
concentrations exceed 3 ppm. Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations were less than 3 ppm in 84
percent of the wells tested in the study.
The most commonly detected pesticide product in the samples was ethane sulfonate, a
breakdown product of the herbicide alachlor. This breakdown product is considered nontoxic
by EPA, said Dave Baker of the Heidelberg College Water Quality Laboratory.
The lab also studied the location of nitrate and pesticide concentrations, and although most of
the maps showed a random distribution, there were some links to local geology. For example,
some river valley aquifers and karst areas had higher nitrate levels than adjacent areas. The lab
also discerned that pesticides, especially the alachlor by-product ethane sulfonate, were
indicated more frequently in some areas of sandy soils and shallow water tables.
Using the responses of well owners to questionnaires returned with water samples, the lab also
identified connections between water quality data and well characteristics. Comparisons
revealed that nitrate, and often pesticide, concentrations were significantly higher in
¦ older or shallow wells,
¦ wells that have gone dry in the past,
¦ wells with no casing or a casing that does not extend above ground level,
¦ wells in sandy soil, and
¦ wells close to croplands or barnyards.
"In addition to providing many individuals with information concerning their well water,
Baker said, "the large size of the database supports statistical confirmation of many of the
expected relationships between vulnerability factors and well contamination."
The analysis also revealed that wells used for domestic purposes yielded lower nitrate and
pesticide levels than those used for livestock or irrigation. According to the lab, factors that had
no relationship to concentrations, or only a weak one, included proximity to chemical
dealerships, landfills, hazardous waste sites, and rivers or streams. Despite generalizations
offered by the study, Baker emphasized that "there's no substitute for testing your well!"
[For more information, contact Dave Baker or R. Peter Richards at the Water Quality Laboratory,
Heidelberg College, 310 East Market Street, Tiffin, OH 44883. Phone: (419) 448-2198.]
News from the States, Tribes, and Localities,
Where the Action Is
Tree Planting Program Completes Its First Year —
Offers Help to Ohio Landowners
Tree plantings, from Johnny Appleseed until now, have had both practical and symbolic
meaning. Planted beside running water, trees are a symbol of shelter, nourishment, and
strength. More than that, they improve water quality, offer habitat, help control erosion, and in
some cases provide income, among other benefits.
So "Should we plant trees?" is not the question. Instead, landowners are more likely to ask,
"Who has the time, and who will do the work?"
In Ohio, help is available from TREES — the Tree Resource Establishment and Enhancement
Service, a cooperative program of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Office of
Forestry and the Top of Ohio Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Council.
TREES is a contract service to help landowners plan and maintain healthy trees on their land.
The program is as simple as the need for it is strong. The landowner, in consultation with the
ODNR forester, makes a plan for the tree planting, determines the number of acres to be
planted, and signs a contract with the RC&D Council for a three-year term. The RC&D Council
then hires a vendor who will plant and maintain the trees during that time. The landowner
pays a flat fee to the RC&D Council for this service. In some cases, cost-share programs are
available to help the landowner defray costs. The ODNR forester can provide information
about these possibilities.
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 11
-------
* «Vi have completed our first olaniinc Ci 'Nil Forester KatK SmU.i, ' anc ut» are
Wty pioi-ed w.lh She prolan WV planted 21 acres lh»% tirsl war, arid we had many
out-of-state call-* tor mtormati m
!hi* biggfsi problem, Smith said, is itnJmg a permanent undor to handle the contracts 'I his
year, th» pr»if.rarti operated along the Mad Riv er and in the Indian Lake and Stillwater
watershed?., but next year, ad dud Smith, "we expect tn do e\ en more," She noted the great
opportunity that exists for plantings "espeoally along the edges of fields included in the
Conservation Reserve Program,"
Stops Needed to Fxf,ih->stt .1 Star"d of T/ecs
TREES help'' the Jand< wnet taik'e the (turn technical questions that arise before tree plantings
can K* undertaken The bin ,tln wu* questions concent M'e preparation and maintenance
planning, and protective measures tt eiKurt that wildlife will net damace the v ;ung tree* "We
also have to assure Lmdow ness that the tree> wtii n >t attract too many d* er,' Smith iaid
I'KFES supports three types ot tree planting
• block plantings for erosion control, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and income;
¦ filter strip* for improved water quality, sediment control, erosion control, aqua tit-
habitat, income, wildlife habitat and wetlands protection; and
¦ wsndbteaks tor soil Denervation, energy censer v alton, livestock protection,
aesthetics, wildlife haintat, and increased crop yieiis and quality
The vendor works according to the plan devised by the landowner and the OD\'R forester The
minimum umtieRt includttie preparatior tree >tfedl.n,v, plantings, two maintenance
mowings in th>» hrst year, and three maintenance mowing- in the second and third years Tree
shelters may also be provided, though this service involve an additional per-acre lee.
Many organizations are able to involve citizens m animal tree planting ceremonies because the
approach i:> simple ami the symholism clear. However, properly planning and maintaining an
entire stand of ta>es as a way to restore or enhance wooded areas or to help control nonpomf
source pollution along streams requires a commitment ot time and a degree of digging that is
at ten beyond an individual's ability. Ohio's TRI-ES is a partnership between landowners and
natural resource agencies that overcomes this difficulty
/fiy .Momatc cwsrf fu"> s*"* *' % r. nsv .*¦ -TV^a t'l?.".* I,-*Mf,' .>!, rtfs <.">%•#
""i". ,1 "'J " , •J,r\,r » T3"£ C"~< ',t P*ic"Y< "3," !06
EPA and Universit/ of Maryland Pun
financial Management Center
Increasingly, communities aciuss th.' country lace rtsmg » in ironrsterttal co^s and the pressure
ot inadequate funds. To adds ess these environmental and tmanc.al concerns,, the University of
Maryland's Coastal and Envtiuitmental Policy Pre gram, '.vith support f-om the L" h F-PA
sponsors the f nvironmental Finance Centtr
The Center promoks alternative and innovative ways to manage the ccst of orvironmental
actsvit.es, provides training, and works to increase the public and private sector s awareness of
the benefit* »n ,ociated with sound «->nvm»rment.ii management policies
The Center s comprehensive and integrative approach to environmental tmance stems from a
strategic management perspective that emompasses a broad spectrum of activities. Needs
assessments, issue pnorizatson, identification ot relevant environmental regulation and
compliance issues, development of capital facilities plans, identification of revenue sources, and
community participation are precursors to secuung financing.
Sn addition, tae Center is a repository and clearinghouse tor environmental finance - related
tntoimation Item HFV the Ens ironmental Financial Ad\s-or\ Board tf-FAHL and the
En\ ironmental Financing information Nienvork (cFIN"! as well is other environmental tinarce
centers across the nation
1 he Center carries out tour major interrelated initiatives
• technical assistance and support to enhance the capacity of state arid local agencies
to meet and successfully implement environmental i»oais and regulations;
12 NONPOtNT SOURCE NEWSNOTES AUGUST SEPTEMDER 1983, ISSUE .42
T'ret- Fkmhng
t\( cra<~*
• *es
fits: Year
-------
EPA and
Maryland
University Offer
Financial
Management
Help
(continued)
m training and curriculum development opportunities through established
educational and environmental leadership programs for students, mid-career
executives, and senior executive professionals;
¦ public information and outreach designed to increase awareness of sound
environmental planning and implementation practices; and
¦ information sharing and materials development.
[For more information, contact Elizabeth Hickey, Coordinator, Environmental Finance Center at the
University of Maryland, 0112 Skinner Hall, College Park, MD 20742. Phone: (301) 405-6383; Fax: (301)
314-9581.]
InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Park —
California's Coastal First
A partnership of agencies and organizations is trying to return 3,900 acres of Northern
California coastal forest to the stewardship of Native Americans and restore the mature mixed
redwood and Douglas fir forest.
Located in Mendocino County north of Fort Bragg, the area has been heavily logged over the
past 40 years and resulting erosion has clogged streams, all but eliminating native salmon and
steelhead trout. Recently, the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council has undertaken stream
improvement, tree planting, removal of old logging roads, and watershed and forestry
stewardship planning projects on the parcel and in the adjacent state park.
The entire tract of 7,100 acres was purchased by the California State Parks, Save the Redwoods
League, the California Coastal Conservancy, and the Trust for Public Land. About 3,200 acres
were added to the adjacent State Wilderness Park. The Trust for Public Lands owns and
administers the remaining section known as the Upland Parcel. The InterTribal Sinkyone
Wilderness Council, a coalition of 10 Indian tribes, will be offered a two-year option to purchase
the tract for $1.4 million.
An easement will guide the property's use in a way that provides income while requiring
preservation of the ecosystem, according to Laurie Wayburn, executive director of the Pacific
Forest Trust, which holds the trust. The easement allows the InterTribal Council to use about 5
percent of the park for a native plant nursery, back-packing and horse camps, trails for access
into the state park, and educational and cultural camps. Limited logging of mature, but not
old-growth, trees will also be allowed.
The site will become the nation's first intertribal wilderness park, said Hawk Rosales, executive
director of the Intertribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council. The Council is a coalition of area tribes
whose members have historical ties to the now-extinct Sinkyone Tribe.
The tribes will continue to practice riparian restoration to reduce erosion and encourage the
return of native fish and other endangered species.
[For more information, contact Laurie Wayburn, Executive Director, The Pacific Forest Trust, Boonville, CA
954415. Phone: (707) 895-2090, or Hawk Rosales, Executive Director, InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness
Council, 190 Ford Road, # 333, Ukiah, CA 95482. Phone: (707) 463-6745.]
Barton Springs Water Protection Efforts Challenged
Contributed by D. Lauren Ross, Ph.D., P.E., Glenrose Engineering, Austin, Texas.
In 1992, citizens of Austin, Texas, voted overwhelmingly to enact the Save Our Springs (SOS)
ordinance, mandating urban development regulations for nonpoint source pollution control to
protect Barton Springs and Edwards Aquifer. Despite serious setbacks since that triumph, the
SOS water advocacy group carries on in the spirit of Margaret Mead's counsel, "Never doubt
that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only
thing that ever has."
Save Our Springs Ordinance Weathers Scrutiny
To date, the SOS ordinance has faced four formidable challenges to its implementation. First,
the effectiveness and validity of the SOS ordinance was scrutinized by the Texas Water
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 13
-------
Barton Springs
Water Protection
Efforts
C^atengea
t continued)
* Activities thai currently hold a permit can continue indefinitely under regulations
in place at the time the original permit application was submitted. This legislation
would appear to prevent public entities from applying updated regulations to
address land development and public health issues,
¦ Development of properties greater than 1,000 acres (or 500 acres with approval of the
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission [TNRCC]} would be exempt from
all municipal water quality or land use regulation and subject only to regulation by
the TNRCC, which currently has no generally applicable water quality regulations
for development. Although state bills applying to local areas are prohibited by the
Texas constitution, this bill was created by defining conditions that could potentially
apply to other areas, but are specific only to Austin at this time.
¦ A special district was created tor one large development, known as Circle C# located
above the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone. The district h.i> unprecedented powers,
including subdn ision and zoning authoritv, and limited responsibilities for water
quality protection. Furthermore, (he district has no responsibility, financial or
otherwise, to meet the terms ot contracts between Circle C and the city of Austin
th.it have been in place for o\ er 10 vc*ars; for example, the provision that Circle C
must comply with any water quality regulation enacted by the city-
¦ A state "takings" bill was passed, The effect of this law prohibits the city of Austin
from considering the geological differences that impact the aquifer outside the city
limits but within its jurisdiction on water quality matters. This bill also authorizes
private land owners to sue governmental entities to invalidate regulations or
require compensation tor actions that decrease property values.
Commission, the state agency responsible for reviewing municipal water pollution abatement
programs, Eventually, in anticipation ot a Texas Water Commission ruling that the SOS
ordinance was technically valid, the developers withdrew their challenge against the ordinance
to avoid damaging their opportunity for future legal claims
A second potential obstacle arose when it became evident that the city of Austin would write
rules governing the day-to-day implementation of the ordinance's pollution prevention
standards, as opposed to drafters of the ordinance. There were, for example, differences
between the drafters and city staff involving the calculation of the post-development
storm water runoff coefficient lined to determine capture volume tor BMP ponds. However, both
parties eventually agreed on most of the substantial ordinance implementation issues.
Although the SOS ordinance successfully weathered the first two challenges, it will probably be
rendered ineffective by judiciary and legislative processes.
Judicial and Legislative Forces Prove to be Formidable Foes
A third challenge concerns the legal validity of the ordinance. A landmark trial affecting the SOS
ordinance occurred last fait when a rural jury, from a county outside Austin, ruled that the SOS
ordinance was invalid on 18 points of law, (One juror with professional water quality
experience supported the ordinance.) The most visible plaintiffs in the Hays County trial were
small landowners with a vested financial interest in the proposed development project affected
by the SOS ordinance. Even though the SOS ordinance allowed for a higher impervious cover
than the previous ordinance, these landowners opposed SOS due to its "no variances allowed"
provision. Their law fees were financed by one of Austin's largest developers,
Frveport-McMoran, whose proposed development in 199] galvanized the Austin community to
protect Barton Springs.
In addition, f reeport-McMoran sued Austin directly for violation of the corporation's a\ il
rights through implementation of development regulations. Although Freeport-McMoran won
the suit, the court awarded the corporation only SI 13.000, far less than the millions it sought.
Despite the seriousness of these court decisions, they are under appeal and may be reversed.
The fourth and potentially most damaging challenge is also the most recent one: four bills
passed m the spring 1995 Texas state legislative session that critically curtail Austin's ability to
protect its drinking water supply. Similar bills had been introduced in 1993, but they were either
defeated in that session or vetoed by Governor Ann Richards. The effects of the 1995 bills are as
follows:
14 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST,SEPTEMBER 1095, ISSUE *42
-------
an Water Initiative Expands without SOS
Despite these setbacks, the Austin community maintains its commitment to protecting the
quality of its watersheds and Barton Springs. Advocates of the SOS ordinance continue to
oppose expensive capital improvement projects that extend urban infrastructure and roads,
thereby encouraging urban sprawl into watersheds that contribute to the water supply.
In a message directly targeting consumer awareness, environmentally sensitive areas of the
community have been mapped. In addition, an ordinance has been passed to extend some of
the development regulations for the Barton Springs Zone to all of Austin's suburban
watersheds. These regulations include a requirement to capture and treat additional rainfall
runoff from high impervious cover areas. So although the fate of the ordinance appears cast, the
citizens of Austin continue to advocate the protection of Barton Springs.
[For more information, contact D. Lauren Ross, Ph.D., P.E., Glenrose Engineering, 1711 South Congress
Avenue, Suite 201, Austin, TX 78704. Phone: (512) 448-2033.]
In Virginia, 319 Grant Funds Constructed Wetlands
to Treat Effluent from Privy
Adapted with permission from The Virginia Environmental Health Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 1, Fall 1994.
In Fauquier County, Virginia, as elsewhere, septic failure poses a serious nonpoint source
pollution concern. Effluent from failing septic tanks is a potential source of nutrient loading and
elevated bacteria levels in nearby waterways. Often the quality of the soils where a home and
septic system have been constructed are not suitable to support a conventional effluent
treatment system. Now a unique approach to tackling this dilemma is being tried in Fauquier
County. The project involves placing constructed wetlands on a historic site.
The project site is a turn-of-the-century schoolhouse just outside of the village of Marshall. The
schoolhouse, which is under consideration for listing on the national and state historic registers,
has been unused since the 1960s. Under the guidance of architect Jack LaMonica, the county-
owned schoolhouse is being restored to its original condition and will be turned into a museum.
The schoolhouse's old privy has been replaced with a modern facility as part of the project. But
the historic site has substandard soil properties and a fluctuating seasonal water table that pose
potential problems for conventional septic drainfields.
So Charles Shepherd, John Largent, and Chuck Jackson of the Fauquier County Health
Department; Danny Hatch, Fauquier County soil scientist; and members of Keep Fauquier
Clean have obtained a 319 grant to treat effluent from the privy with a system of constructed
wetlands and drip irrigation.
An Alternative System Takes Shape
Effluent from the improved privy enters a baffled 1,125 gallon septic tank for initial treatment.
From here, effluent flows through one of two 8-by-24-foot wetland cells. The first wetland cell,
14 inches deep, has a bottom layer of 3- to 4-inch-diameter rock sitting atop a plastic liner. Pea
gravel and mulch placed above the larger rock provide a base for the growth of the root mat of
native Fauquier County plants. Railroad ties donated by Norfolk and Western Railroad create a
25-inch tall border around the cell. The second wetland cell is identical to the first, except that it
is unlined and extends only nine inches deep to facilitate percolation into the soil. Cooperative
Extension Master Gardeners chose and planted a combination of native cattails and irises.
Physical, biological, and chemical processes combine in each wetland cell to treat effluent. The
even distribution of flow across the wetland cells allows root uptake and transpiration of water
to the atmosphere. The water level in the wetland cells is kept to one inch below the gravel
surface, to improve treatment by the plant root mat and to control mosquitoes. Fresh water can
be added to the cells as needed. Percolation of wastewater into the soil in the second cell
provides filtering and allows water to be purified by chemical reactions in the soil. Valves
installed between the privy septic tank and the wetland cells and between the two wetland cells
divert water to the pump system in case of malfunction.
Barton Springs Clet
Water
Protection
Efforts
Challenged
(continued)
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 15
-------
After leaving the second wetland cell, water and any remaining effluent enter a 1,125-gallon
pump chamber that connects to the drip irrigation system. Installed by the American
Manufacturing Company of Manassas, Virginia, the irrigation system is a network of tubing 14
to 16 inches below the surface. The irrigation system further treats and disposes of the
wastewater in the most suitable section of the soil. Keeping the effluent on-site also eliminates
the need for a discharge permit.
Winter weather delayed the installation of the drip irrigation system until this spring. "Because
this wetland is the first of its type to be constructed in Virginia," Hatch said, "every work day is
a learning experience. Within the next several weeks, we hope to have the remaining facilities in
place and to start monitoring the constructed wetlands and drip irrigation system." Monitoring
wells were installed around the site at different depths in order to survey the fluctuating
seasonal water table and establish a baseline for the data. Water quality data will be collected
over three years.
A hard working group of volunteers from the public and private sector, under the lead of Paddy
Katzen, deputy secretary with the state Department of Environmental Quality, donated time
and materials to make the project a reality. They are hoping their effort will yield an inexpensive
and effective method to treat effluent. "In time," Hatch commented, "hard data will reveal how
efficient this system is in cleaning up this pollutant and benefiting the environment." Once
proven, the system can be used by water quality managers to prevent nonpoint source
pollution and to improve the situation of homeowners faced with failing septic systems.
[For more information, contact Danny Hatch, Fauquier County Department of Community Development,
40 Culpeper Street, Warrenton, VA 22186. Phone: (540) 347-8660; or C.A. Jackson, Jr., Fauquier County
Department of Environmental Health, 320 Hospital Hill Drive, Suite 21, Warrenton, VA 22186. Phone: (540)
347-6369.]
Shellfish Protection Districts Combat NPS,
Preserve Industry in Washington
Commercial shellfish production in Washington State is an $84-million-a-year industry, with
Puget Sound harvests contributing about half of the revenue. Increasingly threatened by
nonpoint source pollution, however, shellfishing in 40,730 acres of Washington's commercial
shellfish beds has been restricted or prohibited since 1981 by the Washington Department of
Health. In 1987, the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan developed a goal to prevent
further restrictions on shellfish beds and to upgrade at least one shellfish harvest area a year.
Shellfish Protection Districts authorized by 1992 legislature are a step toward reaching that goal
(see Nonpoint Source News-Notes #6). Created by counties with shellfish tidelands, the Districts
provide a funding mechanism for shellfish and water quality protection programs.
The Lower Hood Canal Shellfish Protection District, one of five now established, is a good
example of how the Districts operate.
Lower Hood Canal Creates a Shellfish Protection District
Mason County established the Lower Hood Canal Shellfish Protection District in May 1993.
Although counties can create the districts voluntarily, the Lower Hood district was formed in
response to a state law requiring the creation of a
Shellfish Protection District when a shellfish
growing area is downgraded or closed because of
nonpoint source pollution. Failing on-site septic
systems and agricultural runoff in Mason
County's Lynch Cove triggered the downgrade
and the formation of the Lower Hood Canal
District.
The Lower Hood Canal District includes 5,411
parcels with on-site septic systems, including 1,350
located along the waterfront. Landowners pay $52
a year per parcel of land, and an additional $26 a
year charge for parcels with tidelands.
In Virginia, 319
Grant Funds
Constructed
Wetlands
to Treat Effluent
from Privy
(continued)
Copies of the 1994 Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan
are available from the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority, P.O. Box 40900,
Olympia, WA 98504-0900. Phone: (360)
407-7300; Fax: (360) 407-7333. An NPS
action plan addresses watershed
issues, on-site sewage disposal,
agricultural and forest practices, pest
management, marinas, recreational
boating, and household hazardous
waste.
16 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
Facilities permitted for wastewater discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) are exempt from district fees to avoid charging operations
duplicate fees. Forest and timber lands are exempt because they are not major sources of fecal
coliform bacteria.
Counties with Shellfish Protection Districts receive priority consideration for state water quality
funding, and districts may use their revenue as matching funds to obtain additional grants. A
$20,000 Ecology Shellfish Initiative Grant, a $63,500 Puget Sound Action Grant, and the county
general fund provided other sources of financial support for the Lower Hood Canal Shellfish
Protection District in 1994. The money was used for water quality protection activities such as
¦ inspection, repair, and education pertaining to on-site sewage systems;
¦ installation of agricultural BMPs through conservation district farm planning; and
¦ production of a newsletter and other educational materials on water quality.
To prevent duplication of effort, agencies such as local health departments, public works
departments, and conservation districts can use revenue raised by districts to carry out related
water quality programs.
The Mason County Health Department helps identify failing on-site septic systems and
oversees their repair. Since 1994,1,517 inspections have uncovered 162 failing systems in the
watershed, of which 53 systems have been repaired. Progress is slow because the small lot sizes
in the watershed often require difficult and expensive engineering solutions to septic system
failure. A low-interest loan program in Mason County assists homeowners with repair costs.
The formation of mandatory Shellfish Protection Districts in response to shellfish bed
downgrades and restrictions ensures an active response by local agencies and residents to
nonpoint source water quality problems. The districts offer a unique approach to water quality
protection, recognizing the link between improving and protecting water quality and
maintaining the resource base of the shellfish industry. Duane Fagregren, deputy director of the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, sums up the role of Shellfish Protection Districts. "The
districts provide the local funding necessary to help protect clean water critical to the economy
of many rural areas in Washington." Fagregren, a former president of the Pacific Coast Oyster
Growers Association continued, "It's a quality of life issue for most of us who live and play on
the waters and shores of Puget Sound."
[For more information, contact Kevin Anderson of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, P. O. Box
40900, Oiympia, WA 98504-0900. Phone: (360) 407-7324.]
Technical Notes
Pesticide Studies in Conference Proceedings — Poster Presentations
Give Researchers a Chance to Share Results
editor's note: The following abstracts were included among the pesticide poster presentations made
at the "Clean Water, Clean Environment, 21st Century, Team Agriculture Working to Protect Water Re-
sources" conference, March 5-8, 1995. The conference, sponsored by the USDA's Working Group on
Water Quality, was coordinated by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, who also published
the proceedings. From time to time News-Notes will present abstracts of various technical studies
deemed to be generally useful and interesting to nonpoint source water resource managers and other
readers.
Where's the Atrazine? — A Regional Groundwater Synopsis
by N. Fausey et al.
More than 80 percent of the atrazine used in the United States is applied to control broadleaf
weeds in cornfields in the Midwest. A major concern is whether this atrazine is a potential
contaminant of groundwater. The Management Systems Evaluation Area (MSEA) Program is
conducting studies in eight of the 11 Corn Belt states to determine the extent of atrazine
leaching under field conditions.
Shellfish
Protection
Districts Combat
NPS, Preserve
Industry in
Washington
(continued)
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 17
-------
Atrazine occurrence in groundwater is governed by landscape topography, depth to the water
table, hydrogeology of the area, and soil qualities, including its sorptive affinity and hydraulic
conductivity. The time of application in relation to infiltration of rainfall or irrigation can also be
very important.
With few exceptions, the concentration of atrazine in the groundwater is well below the 3 parts
per billion maximum contaminant level (MCL). The highest concentrations of atrazine have
been in groundwater at three sites where irrigation is part of the farming management.
However, new irrigation schemes are actually lowering the concentration of atrazine in the
groundwater at one of these sites at which groundwater is used to supply the irrigation water.
Soil samples indicate that most of the atrazine remains near the soil surface, that the
concentration in the soil is not increasing over time as more atrazine is applied, and that soil
organisms are able to decompose most of the atrazine within a few months after application.
This study has the following implications for farming practices including rotations, tillage,
irrigation, and pesticide application methods. Irrigation and ridge tillage both promote high
infiltration; any excess water moves below the root zone and enhances groundwater recharge.
Irrigation can be managed to minimize recharge soon after atrazine application. Corn-soybean
rotation requires less atrazine than continuous corn, and banding atrazine over the row also
reduces the amount applied. Thus, proper management of water along with rotation and
banded application can reduce this threat to groundwater quality.
[Pages 69-72 in Clean Water, Clean Environment, 21 st Century, Team Agriculture Working to Protect
Water Resources. Volume 1, Pesticides. Proceedings of a Conference sponsored by the USDA's Working
Group on Water Quality. Coordinated and published by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, Ml. For further information on the poster, call N. Fausey at USDA-ARS, 590 Woody Hayes
Drive, Columbus, OH 43210. Phone: (614) 292-9806.]
Reducing Herbicide Inputs in Weed Management Systems for the Corn Belt
by J.W. Hummel, L.M. Wax, and E.W. Stoller.
Our research is designed to develop technologies that reduce herbicide inputs, maximize
pesticide and fertilizer applications to reduce off target movement, and develop alternate weed
management systems using environmentally friendly herbicides. Excellent corn and soybean
yields were obtained in field tests of weed management systems using less than 1 ounce of
postemergence herbicides per acre in conventional and no-till production systems. This low
rate, low-cost technology is ready for wide-scale testing in grower field evaluation. It may
improve water quality and reduce use of atrazine and alachlor.
A multiple-wavelength, landscape-independent soil cation exchange capacity (CEC )and
organic matter sensor that can be used over a wide geographic range has been developed and
licensed for commercialization. Sensors for other soil parameters are being sought, and we have
made progress on nutrient sensing using ion-selective field effect transistors and on-machine
vision for swath guidance.
A model has been developed to predict time of emergence for several important weeds. It is
driven by soil temperature and moisture conditions that allow growers to maximize weed
control with timely herbicide applications. We are investigating the spatial patterns of soil
fertility and developing methods for identifying scenarios in which making site-specific
herbicide applications has economic as well as environmentally positive returns.
[Pages 93-96 in Clean Water, Clean Environment, 21st Century, Team Agriculture Working to Protect
Water Resources. Volume 1, Pesticides. For further information, call J.W. Hummel, Agricultural Engineer,
Crop Protection Research Unit, USDA Agricultural Research Service, 1304 W. Pennsylvania Avenue,
Urbana IL 61801. Phone: (217) 333-0808.]
Pesticides in Chesapeake Bay — Atmosphere and Surface Waters
by L.L. McConnell et al.
Drainage water from 3,000 square miles of agricultural lands flows into the Chesapeake Bay,
and an estimated 4.8 million pounds of pesticides are used within this drainage area each year.
Scientists have shown that pesticides can also be released to the air from soil and plant material
during and after application through a process called volatilization. Significant amounts of
pesticides may also be lost to the atmosphere during and after application. Subsequent
redeposition from the atmosphere of pesticides to surface waters is an area of concern as some
pesticides are toxic to wildlife at extremely low levels.
Pesticide Studies
in Conference
Proceedings
(continued)
18 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
The potentially important role of the atmosphere as a nonpoint source of pesticides to the
Chesapeake Bay was demonstrated in an earlier USDA study, which found that regional
atmospheric transport and baywide deposition may be an important mechanism for the
introduction of pesticides such as atrazine, simazine, and toxaphene into the Chesapeake Bay.
This project is a continuation of the earlier work and attempts to determine changes in
atmospheric loadings over an entire planting season and in different regions of the Bay.
Concentrations of some of the heaviest use herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, as well as some
past-use organochlorine pesticides, were measured in air and surface water from 16 stations in the
Bay during four 4-day cruises (March, April, June, and September 1993). Air samples were also
collected from three land-based stations during each cruise. Of the target pesticides, the compounds
most often observed in the atmosphere, in order of greatest concentration to lowest, were
chlorpyrifos, metolachlor, trifluralin, hexachlorocyclohexanes, endosulfan, and chlordane. Levels of
all compounds were relatively low (0.01 to 1.0 parts per trillion).
In surface waters, the highest concentrations were found in the north near the mouth of the
Susquehanna River and concentrations decreased as we moved southward toward the Bay. The
Susquehanna brings in almost half of all freshwater entering the Bay each year, and its
watershed is heavily agricultural. Pesticides may be entering this river through runoff or
atmospheric deposition. Tidal inflows from the mouth of the Bay may be responsible for the
decline in concentrations from north to south. The most often observed compounds, in order of
highest to lowest levels in water, were chlorpyrifos, atrazine, metolachlor, simazine, diazinon,
and hexachlorocyclohexanes. Concentrations in water were also relatively low (approximately
0.1 to 10 parts per billion for each compound). While pesticides were observed in the surface
water during each cruise, levels observed during the September cruise were significantly lower
than the other three cruises. The highest levels over all the stations were observed during the
June cruise (following the spring planting). These data allow us to set priorities for future
projects and to make preliminary estimates of pesticide loadings to Chesapeake Bay.
[Pages 129-132 in Clean Water, Clean Environment, 21st Century, Team Agriculture Working to Protect
Water Resources. Volume 1, Pesticides. For further information, call L.L. McConnell, USDA Agricultural
Research Service, Environmental Chemistry Laboratory, Building 007, Room 225 BARC-West, Beltsville,
MD 20705. Phone: (301)504-6298.]
To order the proceedings, contact the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2950 Niles Road,
St. Joseph, Ml 49085-9659. Ask for ASAE 2-95. The three-volume set is $45; $41 for ASAE members.
STORET X Prototype Gets Thumbs Up from Users
on National Tour
EPA's Office of Water demonstrated the latest prototype of modernized STORET at six locations
across the country, including Tallahassee, Athens, Chicago, Seattle, Sacramento, and San
Francisco. The new version, "Maintain Site/Organization/Project" represents two-thirds of the
prototype and will be used for data entry of the location, owner, and purpose of the sampling
site. STORET X will replace the current STORET, BIOS, and ODES ambient water quality and
biological monitoring data systems by mid-1997 and provide a national system to manage
environmental water and biological data throughout the country.
Participants at the demonstration sites universally accepted the fundamental concepts and
structure of the prototype and offered comments that would "fine tune" it. Many were
impressed with its ability to house high-level metadata and said that the STORET X prototype
mirrors the actual business of water quality monitoring in EPA and the states.
Many organizations interested in STORET modernization are in the process of reengineering
their own systems. Some states are redesigning their systems to be compatible with STORET X.
The Florida Marine Research Institute and EPA will test the revised version of the prototype in
October 1995. The complete system prototype will be ready for testing by the end of 1995, and
will be able to collect and maintain sample and test results data. The full system prototype will
be demonstrated at the next workshop, scheduled for April 1996.
[For more information, contact Phil Lindenstruth, Office of Water (4503 F), U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 260-6549. E-mail: lindenstruth.phil@epamail.epa.gov.]
Pesticide Studies
in Conference
Proceedings
(continued)
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 19
-------
Notes on Environmental Education
(and having fun at the same time)
College-Level Pollution Prevention Educational Tool
The National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education (NPPC), located at the
University of Michigan, is developing educational compendia integrating pollution prevention
education into course work in several disciplines.
Currently, compendia are available in accounting, business law, chemical engineering,
environmental studies, industrial ecology, industrial engineering, and operations research. An
agricultural compendium that will contain nonpoint source information is in production.
Each compendium includes introductory materials, annotated bibliographies, case studies,
problem sets, and collections of syllabi to demonstrate the environmental and economic
efficiencies of pollution prevention.
NPPC has also developed a student training program focused on pollution prevention. It
provides graduate and undergraduate interns with valuable practical experience, while the
business sponsoring the intern gains quality work in pollution prevention.
The Center represents a collaborative effort between EPA, business, industry, nonprofit
organizations, and academia. Some modules are available electronically (ftp.snre.umich.edu
and gopher.snre.umich.edu and http://www.snre.umich.edu) and through EPA's Pollution
Prevention Information Clearinghouse (202-260-1023).
[For more information, contact NPPC, 430 East University, Ann Arbor, Ml 48109-1115. Phone: (313)
764-1412; Fax (313) 936-2637. E-mail: nppc@umich.edu.]
No Laughing Matter: Comic Books on NPS
Who said comic books were always funny? Entertaining, yes! Educational? Sometimes. Comic
books from the Soil and Water Conservation Society combine the best of both worlds.
This series of learning tools done in comic-book format looks like ordinary comic books, but
they feature kids investigating and solving conservation problems. And even when the stories
involve genies, robots, and aliens, the method is solid.
Story lines address reducing nonpoint source pollution by managing agriculture, mining, and
energy. The latest in the series," Across Time and Space," focuses on ecosystems and the
interactivity of systems.
One of the books is also available in Spanish. But that's not all. With each book comes a
teacher's guide and several suggested activities to extend the learning. The packet even
includes a quiz to evaluate each lesson.
[For more information, contact Tim Kautza, Soil and Water Conservation Society, 7515 N.E. Ankeny Road,
Ankeny, Iowa 50021. Phone: (515) 289-2331.]
Getting Down and Dirty — Envirothon Teams Win on Soils Knowledge
The Lorax Team of Middletown High School, Middletown, Maryland — one of only two all-girl
teams in the Maryland State Envirothon — walked away with top honors from the 1995 state
competition at the Cunningham Falls State Park, near Thurmont, Maryland.
"We were shocked," the girls said. "The third place winner was announced — and it wasn't us
— and the second place winner was announced — and it wasn't us. We really gave up hope
then, because the second place winner had won first in every category but soils.
"Then the first place winner was announced, and it was us! We couldn't believe it."
The girls, who named their team for a Dr. Seuss character, confessed that they "hadn't had a clue
about soils" in the earlier county competition. They boosted their knowledge level, however, at
an all-day training session before the state competition. When the Lorax team didn't understand
the trainers, they asked questions. When other teams attending the training session left for the
day, the Lorax Team stayed behind to learn more. "It really paid off," the girls admitted. "Our
soils score was 15 points higher than the soils score of the second place winner!"
20 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
During the state competition, the team ripped apart the written portion of the exam and gave
different pages to each team member to fill in or pass along to someone else. Questions were
multiple choice, true or false, and essay. Although two members wrote most of the essay questions,
everyone helped them remember what they had learned. The essay questions were very specific,
for example, "draw and label an aquatic food web showing at least five trophic levels."
Lorax Team members are Elaine Bucheimer, Natalie Bucheimer, Crissi Gamache, Jen Morat, and
Erin Weber, with alternates Lara Wise and Tara Harrell. All the girls are rising seniors except
Lara, who is a rising sophomore. Biology teacher Ron Albaugh is their school coach and Barry
Burch provides coaching from the Catoctin and Frederick Soil and Water Conservation District.
Nandua Nature Nurturers
The Nandua Nature Nurturers of Nandua High School (Olney, Virginia) were first-place
winners in the 1995 Virginia State Envirothon held at the Douthat State Park in Bath and
Allegheny Counties, Virginia.
Tim McMath, top soils competitor in the Virginia competition, said he got stuck studying "dirt"
for three years because no one else wanted to. No fan of soil science ("It's the most boring topic
I've ever read about."), McMath has one more year of high school and hasn't decided yet what
he will study at college. "It might be something environmental," he said, but "it won't be dirt."
Nandua High fields two Envirothon teams each year, and Tim has been their soils expert for
three years. He credits the Eastern Shore Soil and Water Conservation District for much of the
team's success at the state competition. He says the District taught them a lot, and even put
them through a practice test about a month before the competition. This is the district's third
win; the second for Nandua High school and Tim McMath.
Members of the Nandua team are Jason Montgomery, Kate VanDyck, Sarah Kaylor, Jennings
Custis, Tim McMath, and alternate Joseph Mora. They are coached by teacher Patricia Defosse
with assistance from the Eastern Shore Soil and Water Conservation District.
Kate VanDyck, the team's aquatics specialist, said she answered questions about mollusks,
scuds, shrimp, insects, and plants, and also had to answer questions about the specific condition
of the creek at the competition site. Before the competition, Envirothon officials sent
participants study material to help them focus on the site's location.
Kate, who graduated this year and plans to major in astrophysics at the University of Virginia,
said, "Some people think the Envirothon is easy, but it's hard and very competitive. I learned a
lot — it's something I'll remember the rest of my life."
In August, both teams will travel to Rexburg, Idaho, for the national competition. They have a
lot to learn between now and then — hopefully they'll be breaking new ground on western
soils.
[For more information, contact Barry Burch, Catoctin and Frederick Soil and Water Conservation District,
92 Thomas Johnson Drive, Suite 230, Frederick, MD 21702. Phone: (301) 695-2803; or Dawn Shank,
Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, 203 Governor Street, Suite 206, Richmond,
VA 23219. Phone: (804) 371-2356.]
NACD SPONSORS ENVIROTHON
Envirothon, a national environmental competition for high school teams, is sponsored by the National Association of
Conservation Districts and supported by many agencies and environmental groups.
¦ County Conservation Districts hold the county contests, sponsor groups from local high schools, and provide training
for student teams and their teachers. Winners at the county level go to the state competition. This year 30 state
winners will compete for the national championship in Rexburg, Idaho, in August.
¦ Envirothon competition is divided into four areas: soils, aquatics, wildlife, and forestry. One student specializes in
each area.
¦ The contest takes place in an outdoor setting, and students must answer questions specific to the site. Each team
must also make an oral presentation about an environmental issue.
[For more information, contact the National Association of Conservation Districts, 408 East Main Street, P. O. Box 855, League
City, TX 77574-0855]
Getting Down
and Dirty —
Envirothon Teams
Win on Soils
Knowledge
(continued)
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 21
-------
Shedd Aquarium Opens
NPS Exhibits
by Scott C. Ristau, Environmental Protection Specialist, Planning Section, Division of Water Pollution Control,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
With funding authorized under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and in cooperation with U.S.
EPA, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has been working with the John G.
Shedd Aquarium to develop and display two exhibits that focus on nonpoint source pollution.
The Shedd Aquarium, located in downtown Chicago, Illinois, overlooks Lake Michigan and is
home to over 8,000 aquatic animals representing more than 650 species. Approximately 1.85
million people visit the Shedd Aquarium each year, making it a major tourist attraction and an
outstanding opportunity to maximize the dissemination of nonpoint source pollution control
information. Both exhibits opened August 2,1995.
The nonpoint source pollution and stream ecology exhibit demonstrates the value and function
of streams, the impact of nonpoint source pollution on water quality, and how Illinois water
resources can be protected. The exhibit consists of a divided aquarium: one half resembles a
healthy stream environment and the other half, polluted conditions. Both halves are stocked
with native fish species of an appropriate pollutant tolerance level. The exhibit points out the
nonpoint source threats to the quality of Illinois streams and the methods by which those
threats can be minimized. It will remain on permanent display at the Shedd Aquarium for at
least three years.
The second exhibit, the Nonpoint Source Pollution Awareness Program, explains the various
forms of nonpoint source pollution, their impacts on the environment, methods for minimizing
those impacts, and the importance of water quality protection. Although the issues are serious,
they are presented in an engaging manner to stimulate the public's willingness to participate in
practical solutions. The exhibit is located in the Shedd Aquarium's main foyer during August
1995. Each Thursday evening in August, the exhibit is part of a special "after hours" event. IEPA
employees and other volunteers staff the exhibit, thus giving the public an opportunity to
question water quality experts. The exhibit will remain on display at the Shedd Aquarium for
an undetermined length of time before being relocated to an alternate venue.
[For more information, contact Scott C. Ristau, Environmental Protection Specialist, Planning Section,
Division of Water Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, IL 62794-9276. Phone: (217) 782-3362.]
MPS Electronic Bulletin Board News
This portion of News-Notes is prepared for the benefit of News-Notes readers who are regular
users of U.S. EPA's NPS BBS.
Nonpoint Source Electronic Bulletin Board System. EPA's NPS BBS, through the
user's personal computer, provides timely, relevant NPS information; a nationwide forum for
open discussion; and the ability to exchange computer text and program files. Specific Issue
Groups (SIGs or mini-bulletin boards) are dedicated to specific topics. Currently, there are
seven SIGs on the NPS BBS: Watershed Restoration, Agriculture, TMDLs, Waterbody System
Support, NPS Research, Volunteer Monitoring, and Coastal NPS Control. All articles from all
issues of News-Notes are stored on the NPS BBS and may be retrieved on your personal
computer. A searchable News-Notes database helps you find the information you need.
To access the NPS BBS, you will need a PC or terminal, telecommunications software (such as
Crosstalk or ProComm), a modem (1200, 2400 or 9600 baud), and a phone line. The NPS BBS
phone number is (301) 589-0205. Parameters are N-8-1,
The NPS BBS may also be accessed from the Internet by typing TELNET FEDWORLD.GOV,
Once on FedWorld, turn ANSII graphics off and go through the Gateway to NPS-BBS, or
command D 79.
22 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
EPA's Water Programs Go On-Line
The E-PA Office of Water/Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds is beginning to use the
Internet to enable the public and federal, state, and local partners to get information on
America's water resources. The new Water Information Network (WIN) will promote
partnerships and communication and help communities interested in the environmental
challenges facing America's water resources. Information on the WIN is designed to flow from
those who have it to those who need it.
Currently, access to newsletters (including NPS News-Notes), fact sheets, brochures, publications,
and other program information about the quality of the nation's water resources is available
through WIN. Access to water quality monitoring methods, tools, and automated information
systems such as STORET is also provided. Information is exchanged through hotlines, bulletin
boards, and group e-mail conversations. Added information, links to partners, homepages, and
other services are also coming to the WIN.
WIN use# EPA's public access servers and can be accessed over the World Wide Web or Gopher.
Enter the Universal Resource Locator (URL) for the EPA homepage: http://www.epa.gov and go
to EPA Offices and Regions, then to Office of Water, or enter http://www.epa.gov.owow and go
directly to WIN. Users need an Internet provider with an Internet Protocol (IP) address, at least
a 386 or comparable personal computer, four megabytes of RAM, and tools for reviewing
graphics on the World Wide Web.
[For more information on WIN, contact Karen Klima, Office of water, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washington,
DC 20460. Phone: (202) 260-7087. E-mail: klima.karen@epamail.epa.gov.]
Reviews and Announcements
Luck Isn't Enough —
Water Video Wins Film Festival Award
The U.S. International Film and Video Festival, the world's largest competition honoring
sponsored business, television, and industrial productions, awarded a Certificate for Creative
Excellence to the film "Luck Isn't Enough: the Fight for Clean Water."
Produced by the Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) Project of the University
of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service, "Luck Isn't Enough" originally focused on the
waters of Long Island Sound. Released to popular and critical acclaim in 1994, the video was
later revised for national distribution on a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. (The original video was reviewed in News-Notes issue #36, May/June 1994.)
This year's festival, the 28th Annual International Awards Competition, received 1,500 entries
from 27 countries. Fewer than 20 percent of the entries survive the competition sufficiently to
take home honors. The NEMO video won the certificate in the "Environmental Issues and
Concerns" category.
[To obtain a copy of the video, send $10 (includes postage) to Chester Arnold, NEMO Project, University
of Connecticut Cooperative Extension, 1066 Saybrook Road, Haddam, CT 06438. Phone: (203) 345-4511;
Fax: (203) 345-3357; E-mail: carnold@canr1 .cag.uconn.edu]
Environmental Patriarch Calls for Restoration
by Rachel Reeder, a News-Notes staff writer
Let the Mountains Talk, Let the Rivers Run: A Call to Those Who Would Save the Earth. David R.
Brower with Steven Chappie. New York: HarperCollins West, 1995. Hardcover, 196 pages,
$20.00.
David Brower — former executive director of the Sierra Club, founder of the League of
Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth and Earth Island Institute, and at 82, a shameless
partisan for the earth, is not bad company of an evening or on a walk, and this slim volume has
so much humor and challenge in it that one can almost hear the author speaking rather than see
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 199S, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 23
-------
the ink on paper — though HarperCollins West has done that nicely, too. The book is printed on
kenaf, a 12-foot-tall cousin of cotton and okra that has more cellulose than wood. It would,
Brower suggests in chapter 8, become considerably cheaper — and more widely recognized as
an alternative to wood pulp — if New York and Los Angeles used it for making phone books.
In this book, part memoir and part sermon, the author uses metaphors drawn from mountain
climbing, from western scriptures, and from conversations to stride rapidly across the major
issues of our time: eco-preserves, tolerable cities, forest preservation, the appetite we have for
resources, population, the need for energy strategies. The terrain is too vast to treat in depth.
The chapter on population is called "More Monks," and the statistics, though powerful, are also
more sound bites than sound science.
So what is it I like about this book? I love it that he makes me want to know the whole story.
Brower makes me want to find out what the stakes really were in the years "we" built the Glen
Canyon Dam, and after the war, when we went back to resources consumption instead of using
the substitutes that research had found. I want to know what was happening while I slept; what
was behind the full page ads and the events that got him fired from the Sierra Club. And what
is still happening; what's going on in southern India, the Caribbean, and along the Kissimmee
River in Florida. But most of all, I love it that he puts all of us in the same boat — the ark that
would conserve, preserve, and in the end, restore, the Earth.
"Restoration," he says, "means putting the Earth's life support systems back in working order:
rivers, forests, wetlands, deserts, soil, and endangered species, too." And, he adds, "human
systems also need restoration" — the South Bronx as well as other habitat.
I leave it to other readers to decide whether an "Earth Corps" or "CPR Corps" —the latter
means a corps trained to provide emergency measures to conserve, preserve, and restore the
Earth — like the agencies Brower envisions in chapter 13 is ever likely or even truly desirable. A
corps, even a well-intentioned one, must be administered, budgeted, and staffed, and sooner or
later, its vision and mission tied down in neat corporate objectives. But the notion that CPR
should be added to everyone's job description, that the wilderness in the world and within us is
worth saving, that we shouldn't worry about what nature is or is not spewing forth but only
about our own excesses and — most important of all — that we shouldn't take ourselves too
seriously are words worth hearing, over and over again. In the end (p. 196) is the beginning:
Let us begin. Let us restore the Earth. Let the mountains talk, and the rivers run.
Once more and forever.
Publication Identifies
Agricultural-Environmental Trends
Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, published in December 1994, by the USDA's
Economic Research Service (ERS) Natural Resources and Environment Division, is the ERS's
newest "basebook." It identifies trends in land and water use, describes commercial inputs,
reports on the condition of natural resources used in the agricultural sector, and describes and
assesses public policies that affect conservation and environmental quality in agriculture.
The book examines the complex connections among farming practices, conservation, and the
environment. It takes stock of how natural resources (land and water) and commercial inputs
(energy, nutrients, pesticides, and machinery) are used in the agricultural sector, shows how
they contribute to environmental quality, and links their use and quality to technological
change, production practices, and farm programs.
Topics include land use, quality, and ownership; farm real estate values; water use and quality;
fertilizer, pesticides, energy, and farm machinery; technology; and the conservation reserve,
compliance, wetlands, and non-USDA programs that affect agriculture.
Thus, the book contains a wealth of information on resources and land uses that will be helpful
to resource managers in a variety of settings. A few illustrations drawn from a single topic —
water use and quality — will serve to indicate the book's usefulness and interest.
¦ Statistics relating to water use (section 2.1) indicate that the United States as a whole
has adequate water supplies —and withdraws only about 7 percent of its annual
renewable supplies for consumptive use. However, these resources are not
Environmental
Patriarch Calls for
Restoration
(continued)
24 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
Publication
Identifies
Agricultural-
Environmental
Trends
(continued)
distributed evenly and in many areas, the overall statistics belie the fact that
regional supplies are limited. In the Colorado River Basin, for example, 96 percent
of the annual renewable supply is withdrawn before the river flows into Mexico
(p. 45).
¦ Graphs and maps provide helpful interpretation of the complex material by region,
usable definitions are provided as needed, and references are provided not only to
the text itself, but in some cases in additional inserts to help people pursue an
interest they would not otherwise know how to begin. For example, page 56
contains helpful hints for learning more about water use and irrigated agriculture.
Irrigation agriculture is, by the way, the largest use category, although irrigation
withdrawals have declined from 46 percent in 1960 to 40 percent in 1990. Other uses
include supplies for thermoelectric use, public and rural needs, and other industries.
¦ The majority of the nation's assessed waters meet designated water quality
standards but the report notes that agriculture is identified as a major or minor
contributor to 72 percent of the river miles and 56 percent of the lake acres assessed
in 305(b) reports (p. 60). Runoff from cropland contributes much of the sediments
and nutrients in freshwater systems, while confined animal facilities can be a source
of pathogens and nitrogen.
¦ The vulnerability of groundwater to agricultural nonpoint source pollution is
acknowledged, but this problem is less well documented than the problem for
surface waters. (Vulnerability does not correlate to actual cases of pollution). Other
agricultural impairments that yield regional but not national problems are
salinization and wetlands degradation.
¦ The cost of agriculture-related water quality problems is difficult to measure;
however, a "best guess" puts the cost of cropland erosion at $3 billion per year —
from damage to freshwater use, storage, navigation, commercial fishing and
municipal treatment plants; the cost of groundwater contamination is between $890
million and $2.2 billion (p. 63).
¦ USD A and non-USDA programs related to solving water quality problems are
discussed in chapter six of this report.
A final note: aware of both the avid interest that most of us have in statistics and our almost
universal tendency to misuse them or to quote them out of context, the preface of this report
briefly notes the methods used in arriving at environmental indicators, and their scope and
intended uses.
[For more information, contact Richard Magleby, Economic Research Service, 1301 New York Avenue,
NW, Room 532 Washington, DC 2005-4788. Phone: (202) 219-0436. To order, call (800) 999-6779. Ask for
Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, publication number AH-705.]
North Carolina Groups Examine
the Benefits and Costs of Nonreguiatory Land Protection
In 1991, North Carolina residents spent $1.2 billion on hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation.
That same year, visitors to the state's 20 coastal counties spent over $995 million, much of which
is attributable to the coast's natural and scenic value.
These findings and others that measure the benefits and costs of protecting North Carolina's
natural lands are documented in an economic study prepared by Research Analytics, Inc., a
Raleigh consulting firm.
This report identifies land as a unique natural resource because it simultaneously provides
goods and services to its owners and to the public. Beyond its direct value, every tract of land
affects the value of neighboring tracts, the local economy, the ecosystems in and around it, and
the quality of life in the community.
Building a Sustainable Landscape: the Benefits and Costs of Non-Regulatory Land Protection, published
by the North Carolina Coastal Federation and the North Carolina Land Trust, discusses the
several benefits and costs of land conservation most relevant to North Carolina:
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 25
-------
The effects on the value of the tract directly involved in a land use decision —
Development tends to increase the market value of land by increasing its access to
roads and utilities, thus allowing the owners to make a profit. Regulations
generally increase the value of existing residential land by protecting amenities,
such as the lack of congestion and nearby natural areas and open space. At the
same time they tend to decrease the value of undeveloped land.
The effects on neighboring property values and on the general price of land —
Conservation land acquisitions and easements generally increase the value of
adjacent properties, especially where those properties are existing or potential
residential areas. For example, homes adjacent to Pea Island National Wildlife
Refuge in Dare County are estimated to be worth about 20 percent more than
similar nearby homes that are not adjacent to the refuge.
Effects on farming, forestry, and tourism — Conservation easements and the
purchase of natural areas in North Carolina are likely to have little effect on total
agricultural and forestry production because the number of acres is unlikely to be
large enough to affect these industries.
Protecting natural areas that are suitable for active or passive outdoor recreation
can boost tourism, the report points out. Tourism is likely to be the state's biggest
industry by 2000, and evidence suggests that quality natural areas attract visitors.
Tourists spent more than $7 billion in the state in 1991, with almost $1 billion
spent in 20 coastal counties.
Effects on the quality and quantity of things that cannot be bought and sold —
The report points out that many of the goods and services provided by nature are
essentially free, in the sense that we never paid for them in the past. When
ecological or aesthetic resources are degraded, we lose some of the value of these
free goods and services.
The report also provides some general observations regarding the trade-offs involved with
natural area protection:
¦ In general, measures to protect land do limit the land's potential contributions to
the economy. However, the loss is often offset by such benefits as enhancement of
nearby property values, business opportunities arising from the protected area, and
general quality of life.
¦ In the long run, the property value and fiscal impacts of conservation are generally
positive. In some cases, areas can avoid expensive environmental protection
measures.
¦ Protected areas with public access and such facilities as trails and interpretive
centers can increase tourism and local property values.
¦ In most cases, the permanent protection of open space and unique natural areas will
redirect development, but not reduce the overall level of development.
[For a copy of Building a Sustainable Landscape: the Benefits and Costs of Non-Regulatory Land
Protection ($5), contact the North Carolina Coastal Federation, 3609 Highway 24, Newport, NC 28570, or
call (919) 393-8185.]
Innovative Options for
Financing Chesapeake Bay Cleanup
A panel appointed by Maryland Governor William Schaefer and charged with finding new
ways to finance the cleanup of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay tributaries has compiled a list of
over 35 different money-raising options that can be used by citizens and state and local
governments.
In August 1992, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia pledged to
develop a cleanup strategy to reach a 40 percent pollution reduction target for each of the Bay's
major tributaries. The tributary strategies will improve the Bay's water quality, habitat, and
living resources.
North Carolina
Groups Examine
the Benefits and
Costs of
Nonregulatory
Land Protection
(continued)
26 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
Innovative
Options for
Financing
Chesapeake Bay
Cleanup
(continued)
Eileen Rehrmann, chair of the panel, said, "We all knew [carrying out the strategies] was going
to cost money. The panel's task was to come up with new, innovative ways for federal, state,
and local governments and the private sector to raise the money they need to pay for the
cleanup." The issues of fairness and equity, including who pays and how much, were central to
the panel's effort to develop the financing alternatives. The idea that those who benefit and
those who pollute should shoulder their fair shares was a theme in many of the panel's
recommendations.
Published by the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland (see "EPA and
University Run Financial Management Center" in this issue), the report focuses on new
financing approaches in the four major areas targeted by Maryland's tributary strategies —
point source pollution, urban runoff, agricultural water pollution, and resource protection. The
options range from broadening the scope of the state's Revolving Loan Fund to small
community "bond banks," which can save municipalities money on their bond offerings by
lowering their interest rates.
Other options the panel developed include
¦ assessing an annual fee for the depletion/degradation of an aquifer,
¦ establishing local agricultural cooperatives to assist farmers in financing their
pollution prevention practices, and
¦ issuing state mini-"Bay-bonds" for tree planting, stream restoration, and other
natural resource protection projects.
[To obtain a copy of the free, 119-page report, contact Carrie Martin, Environmental Finance Center,
University of Maryland, Skinner Hall, Room 0112, College Park, MD 20742. Phone: (301) 405-6384; Fax:
(301) 314-9581; E-mail martin@mbimail.umd.edu]
Rhode Island
NPS Pollution
Rhode Island Sea Grant has produced the Environmental Guide For Marinas: Controlling Non-point
Source and Storm Water Pollution in Rhode Island to assist marina managers in tackling the
complexities of nonpoint source pollution control. A discussion of the pollutants most likely to
be generated by marinas and an explanation of their environmental effects provides an effective
introduction to the problem.
The guide features a review of four categories of best management practices (BMPs), for
marinas in Rhode Island: solid waste and stormwater; fueling, oil, and other petroleum
hydrocarbons; hazardous materials and liquid waste; and vessel discharge of sewage. Under
each category, BMPs are suggested. Solid waste and stormwater BMPs are discussed in terms of
pollution containment, collection and recycling, source control and delivery reduction, and
education. The fueling section emphasizes spill prevention and control, and the vessel sewage
section contains a discussion of the types of sewage collection systems available.
A separate section of the document focuses on developing a marina operations and
maintenance (O&M) plan. Worksheets assist marina operators in the selection of the BMPs most
appropriate for their location and situation. An example of an O&M plan for a fictitious Rhode
Island marina contains completed worksheets and an explanation of the responses to help
marina operators make full use of the guide.
The guide provides several useful appendices, including a model oil spill response plan, a
summary of Rhode Island's stormwater permitting program, a list of pumpout manufacturers,
and sample fact sheets that can be adapted by individual marinas for public education
programs. The bibliography will be useful to those who want to learn more about marinas and
their potential impacts on water quality.
Thanks to funding from the Rhode Island Trade Association, copies of the guide are available
free of charge to Rhode Island marinas.
[To obtain a copy of the guide, send $10 to Rhode Island Sea Grant, Communications Office, University of
Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay Campus, Narragansett, Rl 02882-1197. Phone: (401) 792-6842.]
Targets
from Marinas
by Sam Pett, Staff Scientist, Tetra Tech, Inc.
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 27
-------
Study Guide Available on the Impacts of NPS
on Aquatic Communities
The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation (DCR-DSWC) has published the Aquatic Resources and Nonpoint Source Pollution
Self-Study Guide, which enables adults to test and increase their knowledge about aquatic
ecosystems and NPS. The concept for the guidebook evolved from a 1994 training session for
DCR-DSWC field staff who routinely advise property owners about ways to minimize nonpoint
source pollution.
The intent of the training was to impart a better understanding of how NPS affects aquatic
communities and to instill greater appreciation for the balance that must be maintained to
sustain thriving, productive ecosystems. According to Moira Croghan, coordinator of the
project, "The training was a great success! But we realized that we didn't have the time and
money to replicate similar training for so many others who could benefit from this kind of
experience." To solve this problem, the DCR-DSWC developed the guidebook. Croghan notes,
"Comments on the self-study guide have been very favorable."
The guidebook is divided into five sections; "Overview of Aquatic Ecosystems," "Nonpoint
Source Pollution," "The Impact of Nonpoint Source Pollution on Aquatic Systems," "Positive
Effects of Streamside Management Zones and Wetlands," and "How Can I Protect Aquatic
Systems?" Each section contains a "Quick Quiz" to test the reader's knowledge of the subject.
Questions included on the nonpoint source pollution Quick Quiz include:
¦ Can you name four types of nonpoint source pollution? (answer: sediments, nutrients,
toxics, and pathogens), and
¦ Can you name the most prevalent pollutants in urban runoff? (answer: heavy metals).
Each question has a reference point to direct readers to corresponding explanations.
Features such as the "Quick Quiz" make the guidebook a useful tool for nonpoint source
managers, educators, and others interested in water quality protection. Funding assistance for
the development of the Aquatic Resources and Nonpoint Source Pollution Self-Study Guide was
provided by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration.
[Requests for a single, free copy of the Aquatic Resources and Nonpoint Source Pollution Self-Study
Guide should be directed to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Attention: Jane
Wells, 203 Governor Street, Suite 206, Richmond, VA 23219.]
Directory Describes
National Urban Watershed Restoration Efforts
The National Directory of Urban Watershed Restoration Efforts provides concise descriptions of 50
urban watershed restoration efforts. Representing every region of the country, these cooperative
programs demonstrate a growing commitment to the protection and enhancement of natural
resources in the urban environment.
The variety of organizational structures and approaches also reflects a climate of innovation, as
communities face the challenges of mitigating the impacts of development. The 50 entries were
compiled from an initial list of over 150 contacts. The intent is to highlight projects with
physical restoration activities — whether the project's focus is improving water quality, habitat,
or wildlife. With this directory, the practitioner designing a restoration project need riot feel
alone — chances are there is a contact in this book that can provide some useful insight or
experience.
(For more information, or a copy of the 50-page National Directory of Urban Watershed Restoration
Efforts, send $6.00 (includes postage) to the Center for Watershed Protection, 8737 Colesville Rd., Suite
300, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Phone: (301) 589-1890.]
28 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
Modern Management Methods Topic of New Book
on Stormwater Management
Of interest to stormwater management modelers, environmental and hydrological engineers,
city planners, developers, and conservationists, Modern Methods for Modelling the Management of
Stormwater Impacts contains 26 peer-reviewed chapters selected from 40 presentations. It is the
third in a series from the International Stormwater and Water Quality Management Modelling
Conferences, held annually in Toronto. Contributors include consultants, city engineers, and
academicians from the United States and Canada.
The book is divided into three main sections: Education and Planning, Modelling Water Quality,
and Data Models and Practical Issues. It also includes an extensive glossary, a comprehensive
index, and acronym and program listings. The 500-page book costs U.S. $50.
[For more information, contact CHI, 36 Stuart Street, Guelph, ON N1E 4S5. Phone: (519) 767-0197; Fax:
(519) 767-2770.]
Datebook
DATEBOOK is compiled with the cooperation of our readers. If you would like a meeting or event
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. A more complete listing can be found on the NPS BBS.
Meetings and Events
1995
September
6-8
10-20
17-20
18-20
20-21
22-23
October
2-6
9-11
Great Lakes Commission 1995 Annual Meeting and 40th Anniversary Celebration, Quebec City, Quebec.
Contact: Rita Straith, (313) 665-9135. E-mail: rstraith@glc.org
Karst Waters & Environmental Impacts, Antalya, Turkey. Contact: A. Ivan Johnson, Karst Symposium '95
Co-Chair, A. Ivan Johnson, Inc., 7474 Upham Court, Arvada, CO 80003.
Versatility of Wetlands in the Agricultural Landscape, Tampa, FL. Jointly sponsored by AWRA and AS AE.
Contact: Kerry L. Curtis, Manager of Customer Services, American Water Resources Association, 950
Herndon Parkway, Suite 300, Herndon, VA 22070-5528. (703) 904-1225. Fax: 904-1228.
Third Thematic Conference on Remote Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments, Seattle, WA. Contact:
Wendy Raeder, ERIM, P.O. Box 134001, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-4001. (313) 994-1200. Fax: 994-5123.
E-mail: raeder@vaxc.erim.org
EASI Leadership Conference, Chevy Chase, MD. Contact: EASI, 8733 Old Dumfries Road, Catlett, VA
22019. Phone or fax: (703) 788-EASI. For those interested in opportunities for older persons to
conserve and protect our nation's environment.
Sharing Our Vision for Environmental Education; AFive-State Environmental Education Conference (AR,
LA, NM, OK, TX), Dallas, TX. Co-sponsored by the Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control and Ecology,
the Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality, New Mexico State Forestry, and the Oklahoma Dept. of
Environmental Quality. Contact: Sue Bumpous (512) 239-0049, or Barbara Henry (512) 239-0013.
Linking Land and Water: Third National Nonpoint Source Watershed Monitoring Workshop, Seattle, WA.
Contact: Teena Reichgott, (206) 553-1601.
Local Solutions to Pennsylvania's Pollution: First Annual Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source Conference, State
College, PA. Sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the
Chesapeake Bay Education Office, and EPA. Contact: Nicki Kasi, Nonpoint Source Program Section
Chief, PADER-Bureau of Land & Water Conservation, P.O. Box 8555, Harrisburg, PA. (717) 787-5259.
Fax: (717) 787-9549. Features lessons learned from PA's Chesapeake Bay Program and strategies for
statewide nonpoint source programs.
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS NOTES 29
-------
Datebook (Continued)
1995
Land Trust Alliance National Rally 1995, Pacific Grove, CA. Contact: LTA Rally, 333 North Michigan
Avenue, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60601-4196. (312) 236-6476. Fax: (312) 236-6595. Topics include new
conservation tools, fundraising approaches, federal policy, and legal issues.
Water Quality Workshops to Precede the First Annual EPA Region VI Nonpoint Source Conference, Tulsa,
OK. Contact: Dr. Mike Smolen, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. (405) 744-8414.
Workshops include design of sediment control systems; Know Your Watershed; urban IPM; biological
monitoring in urban streams; and Farm-A-Syst.
First Annual EPA Region VI Nonpoint Source Conference, Tulsa, OK. Contact: Otis Bennett, Cherokee
County Conservation District, 1009 S. Muskogee Ave., Tahlequah, OK 74464. (918) 456-1919. Fax: (918)
456-3147. Sponsored by EPA and Region VI states. For managers, technical people, decision makers
and the general population.
WEFTEC '95: The Water Environment Federation's 68th Annual Conference and Exposition, Miami, FL.
Contact: Water Environment Federation, 601 Wythe Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-1994. (80O) 666-0206.
AWRA 31st Annual Conference & Symposia, Houston, TX. Contact: Mark L. Loethen, P.E., Symposium
Chairperson, Pate Engineers, Inc., 13408 Northwest Freeway, Suite 160, Houston, TX 77040. Topics
include water management in urban areas, advances in model use and development in water
resources, and North American water resources.
15th International Symposium of the North American Lake Management Society on Aquatic Ecosystem
Stewardship, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (705) 766-2418.
Stormwater Management Symposium, Linthicum, MD. Contact: Lynne Hoot, Executive Director, c/o
Maryland Association of Soil Conservation Districts, 53 Slama Road, Edgewater, MD 21307. (401)
956-5771. Fax: (410) 956-0161. The purpose of this symposium is to provide a forum and showcase for
policy makers, consultants, and practitioners from a variety of disciplines in both the public and
private sector, to discuss issues and new developments related to a holistic, ecosystem-based
approach to stormwater management.
Calls for Papers—Deadlines
1995
September
30
October
2
December
31
October
15-18
16
17-19
21-25
November
5-9
6-11
9
AWRA Annual Symposium on Watershed Restoration Management: Physical, Chemical, and Biological
Considerations, July 14-17,1996, Syracuse, NY. Paper, poster, video, and software proposals requested.
Contact: Dr. Jeffrey J. McDonnell, (315) 470-6565.
Conference on Coast Redwood Forest Ecology and Management, Humboldt State University, Areata, CA,
June 18-20,1996. Paper and poster presentations requested. Contact: John W. LeBlanc, University of
California, ESPM-Extension Forestry, 163 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-3114. (510) 642-6678. Fax:
(510) 643-5438. E-mail: jleblanc@nature.berkeley.edu
Seventh Annual Florida Lake Management Society Conference, Ocala, FL, May 22-24,1996. Paper
presentations requested. Contact: The Florida Lake Management Society, c/o Mark Hoyer, U.F.
Department of Fisheries, 7922 N.W. 71 Street, Gainesville, FL 32653. (904) 392-9617, ext. 227.
30 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS NOTES
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
-------
Coupon
Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon #42
(Mail or Fax this coupon to us)
Our Mailing Address: NPS News-Notes, c/o Terrene Institute, 1717 K Street, NW, Suite 801,
Washington, DC 20006
Our Fax Numbers: NPS News-Notes (202) 260-1517 and (202) 296-4071.
Use this Coupon to Q share your Clean Water Experiences
(check one or more) „
LI Ask for Information
~ Make a Suggestion
Write your story, ask your question, or make your suggestions here:
Attach additional pages if necessary.
Your Name:
Organiza tion:
Address:
City/State:
Phone:
~ Please add my name to the mailing list to receive News-Notes free of charge.
~ Change my address. (Please send us your old address, too.)
Date:
Zip:
Fax:
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1995, ISSUE #42
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS NOTES 31
-------
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES is an occasional bulletin dealing with the condition of the water-related environment, the control of
nonpoint sources of water pollution, and the ecosystem-driven management and restoration of watersheds. 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 pollutants and pollutants resulting from human activity, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters,
and groundwater. NPS pollution is associated with land management practices involving agriculture, silviculture, mining, and urban
runoff. Hydrologic modification is a form of NPS pollution that often adversely affects the biological integrity of surface waters.
Editorial contributions from our readers sharing knowledge, experiences, and/or opinions are invited and welcomed. (Use the COU-
PON on page 31.) However, NEWS-NOTES cannot assume any responsibility for publication or nonpublication of unsolicited material
or for statements and opinions expressed by contributors. All material in NEWS-NOTES has been prepared by the staff unless other-
wise attributed. For inquiries on editorial matters, call (202) 260-3665 or FAX (202) 260-1517.
For additions or changes to the mailing list, please use the COUPON on page 31 and mail or fax it in. We are not equipped to accept
mailing list additions or changes over the telephone.
Nonpoint Source NEWS-NOTES is produced by the Terrene Institute under an EPA Cooperative Agreement (# 820957-01) from the
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is
distributed free of cost. Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of EPA or the Terrene Institute. Mention of commercial prod-
ucts or publications does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by EPA or the Terrene Institute.
NONPOINT SOURCE
News-Notes
c/o Terrene Institute
1717 K Street, NW
Suite 801
Washington, DC 20006
NONPROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Merrifield, VA
Permit No. 1308
------- |