October 2000
#62
Nonpoint Sou
News-Notes
The Condition of the Water-Related Environment
The Control of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
The Ecological Management & Restoration of Watersheds
Commentary
Smart Growth vs Urban Sprawl
By Jim Meek, Environmental Consultant
News-Notes
Goes Electronic!
We are switching to electronic
distribution of News-Notes\ Join the
new News-Notes listserver to receive
electronic notices when new issues
are released. If you would still like to
receive a printed copy, you must
send us your name and addressy
Read more about the
switch on page 2.
The CWAP logo denotes
articles related to action
items called for in the
President's Clean Water
Action Plan. See
News-Notes #51 and #52
for more information on
the plan.
Everywhere we turn, we hear about problems created by sprawl, but sprawl still happens. Despite
studies, commissions, task force reports, and conferences on trying to manage, control, redirect, or
even eliminate sprawl, it has been stubbornly resistant to local and regional efforts to slow its
inexorable creep across the American landscape. Research shows that even limited sprawl can have
disastrous consequences on our streams, lakes, coastal areas, and wetlands. But watersheds can be
protected if the way land is managed is fundamentally changed and if what we think of as a dream
home a large house on a large lot with a large paved driveway changes also.
This past spring (May 9-11) I participated in a regional watershed roundtable "Emerging
Watershed Issues: Smart Growth and Urban Sprawl" that served as one step along the path to
changing how we think about development and how we manage our land. The roundtable was
funded under the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) and sponsored by the Conservation
Technology Information Center and EPA Region 5 in Chicago. Several other regional
roundtables, also called for under CWAP, have been held across the nation to discuss various
watershed management issues with a broad range of stakeholders who are responsible for the way
land is managed. (See related article on page 6.) The Chicago roundtable brought these
stakeholders together to discuss critical environmental concerns associated with smart growth and
urban sprawl such as land conversion, critical habitat loss, and downstream impacts.
Inside this Issue
Commentary
Smart Growth vs Urban Sprawl 1
News-Notes is Going Electronic Well Almost! 2
Notes on the National Scene
Political Drama Surrounds Final TMDL Rule 4
The Clean Water Action Plan: Making a Federal Case
of Partnerships 6
USGS Science and Information: Helping Communities Manage
the Effects of Urban Sprawl 8
News from the States, Tribes, and Localities
Nutrient Rules Adopted for Tar-Pamlico River Basin 9
Process and Pitfalls: Awaiting lessons from EPA Pilot TMDLs
for Mercury 10
Notes on Watershed Management
Source Water Protection Through Land Acquisition 13
Gardeners Willing to Try Nonchemical Landscape Practices 14
Why Do (or Don't) Local Government Official's Participate in
Watershed Planning Efforts 15
Agricultural Notes
Cattle to the Water or Water to the Cattle? 17
Atrazine Application Plan Improves Drinking Water 18
Laser Scanner Helps Prevent Soil Erosion 20
Technical Notes
Innovative Irrigation System Implemented 20
New Technology Measures First Flush of Runoff 23
Study Finds Low Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations
Deadly to Tadpoles 24
Notes on Education
Watershed Teaching Tool Hits Home in New Jersey 26
Virginia Governor's Academy for Environmental Stewardship 26
EducationAL Resources Column 27
Reviews and Announcements
Send Us Your I&E Success Stories! 28
Handbook for Making Land-use Decisions 28
GIS Proceedings Available 28
Maryland County Releases Environmental Assessment 2000 28
Tribal Wetland Program Efforts Praised in New Publication 28
Web Sites Worth A Bookmark
Missouri Watershed Information Network 29
Sprawl Guide 29
The Smart Growth Network 29
DATEBOOK 29
THE COUPON 31
All issues of News-Notes are accessible on EPA's website: www.epa.gov/OWOW/info/NewsNotes/index.html
-------
News-Notes is Going Electronic Well, Almost!
After 10 years of printing 14,000 copies per issue, News-Notes is finally entering the digital
age! In order to better serve News-Notes subscribers and to save on printing costs, the
producers of News-Notes are switching to electronic distribution of the newsletter.
Future issues of News-Notes will be available on EPA's web site at
www.epa.gov/owow/info/AeiwAbtoin both pdf and html formats (they are currently
available in only html format). An added feature will be the ability to search through back
issues using an online searchable database. Users will be also able to search by keyword, date
and issue, or by typing in their own search criteria.
We have set up a News-Notes listserver that will be used to announce the posting of each new
issue on the web. It will also provide a table of contents of what articles are available as well
as a short description of each article. To sign up for this listserver, please send an e-mail
directly to:
Listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov
In the body of the message type: subscribe News-Notes firstname lastname
Once subscribed, you will receive a welcome message explaining how the listserver works.
Unlike the widely popular NPSINFO listserver, subscribers will not be able to post messages
to the News-Notes listserver. It will only be used to distribute information pertaining to
News-Notes.
For those of you who are unable to obtain News-Notes electronically and wish to continue
receiving printed copies in the mail, we will continue to print a limited number of copies.
However, in order to receive a hard copy, you must complete and return the form below, as
we will need to develop a new subscriber database.
Still Need a Printed Copy?
~ Yes! I would like to continue receiving printed copies of l\lews-l\lotes by mail.
Your Name:
Date:
Organization:
Address:
City/State:
Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
Web site:
Mail, fax, or e-mail your address to:
NPS News-Notes
c/o Terrene Institute
4 Herbert Street
Alexandria, VA 22305
fax: (703) 548-6299
e-mail: terrinst@aol.com
2 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
Smart Growth VS Many of the speakers at the roundtable provided examples of the benefits gained from efforts to
Urban Sprawl limit the amount of new pavement, rooftops, and other impervious cover created by new
(continued) developments the overriding principle of smart growth. EPA's 1996 assessment of water quality
impairment shows that point sources now contribute only 25 percent of the pollution going into
the nation's waters, whereas polluted runoff from urban areas, suburban landscapes, and agriculture
account for 75 percent. Timothy Henry of EPA Region 5 explained how development patterns,
including heavy auto emissions, contribute heavily to the 40 percent of assessed surface waters
deemed not fishable or swimmable.
Henry explained how several new federal initiatives are helping to define the roles and
responsibilities of federal, state, and local watershed practitioners in combating urban sprawl,
including new storm water phase II regulations and TMDLs. In 1998, states and tribes selected
300 watersheds to develop Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRASs) called for in CWAP
These strategies will use collaborative partnerships to minimize the environmental impacts of
sprawl. Solutions are also coming from transit-oriented development, conservation development,
urban BMPs, and brownfields restoration. Will this work?
The answer depends on how much we can reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled, reduce
chemical lawn maintenance, improve biodiversity, develop walkable neighborhoods (5 minutes to a
convenience store), and much more. For the public to have more meaningful input in these
decisions, we each need to know the boundaries of the watershed we live in, our relation to these
boundaries, and our own specific impact on water quality and overall watershed health.
The Center for Watershed Protection's Jennifer Zielinski thinks the answer lies in how we address
the impacts from land development along four fronts hydrology, geomorphology, water quality,
and habitat. Urbanization has disrupted the natural water balance, increased flood peaks and storm
water runoff, caused more frequent flooding, and resulted in more bankfull flows and lower dry
weather flows. Our watershed hydrology must be restored using detention ponds for large
impervious areas, incorporating swales in our backyard landscapes to handle roof and yard runoff,
and restoring stream and flood plain characteristics.
Zielinski particularly stressed the importance of reducing the impacts of rapid urbanization on our
streams. Urbanization has widened streams and increased erosion, reduced fish passage, degraded
habitat structure, decreased channel stability, destroyed pool riffle structure, fragmented riparian
tree canopy, caused embeddedness, and decreased substrate quality. Together these problems have
drastically changed the geomorphology of our waterways. The Center is working to reduce these
impacts by studying channel enlargement as a function of impervious cover to show how the
stream channel cross section increases as we get ever larger "blow out" flows from normal storms.
(See the Center's Watershed Protection 7ec/m?gm!f Technical Note 115.)
In addition to impacts on hydrology and geomorphology, increased water temperatures and
pollutant-laded runoff from urban areas degrade water quality, causing public health risks and fish
kills. The biodiversity of our streams declines with a loss of buffer zones and instream habitat,
creation of fish barriers, shifts in the energy sources that drive streams, and explosive algae growth.
The Center has developed an urban stream classification model that helps communities assess how
impacted their water bodies might be.
Other solutions, explained in the Center publication Better Site Design: Model Development
Principles to Protect our Streams, Lakes and Wetlands, focus on greatly reducing impervious cover
and runoff to allow infiltration, protecting waterways with riparian buffers, and clustering homes
to allow for protected open spaces of trees. Studies and experience show cost savings from this kind
of new suburban development. But for this to happen, we have to be willing to sacrifice wide
streets, excessive parking spaces, and large lawns. We must be willing to reduce the rapid runoff of
water from our yards and not react with a "not in my backyard" attitude. The Center is currently
planning a separate roundtable to address practices and zoning changes for existing developed
areas. Other discussions during the roundtable covered the move to more environmentally
responsive golf course development, use of volunteers to monitor urban waters, the role habitat
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
3
-------
Smart Growth vs plays in our lives, coordinating our transportation links with development, creating the
Urban Sprawl organization/institutions to support smart growth, building support with all stakeholders,
(continued) implementing conservation practices on our home sites, and tribal watershed planning.
Finally, the last day provided an exercise in developing an integrated financial management
approach for bringing together relevant water quality programs while creating a holistic context for
long-term comprehensive financial planning. It illustrated our need for understanding how to
design our rate structures for drinking water and waste water systems to effectively and affordably
coordinate environmental and health needs. We need to look at all the alternative financing
techniques and educate all stakeholders on the costs and benefits of our smart growth efforts. We
also need to understand the negative cost from urban sprawl, i.e., not doing anything. Under-
standing costs and benefits must be part of the process from start to finish. Often times we want to
pass this responsibility to someone else and thus lose the opportunity to identify and bring together
all the funding sources at the start of our process to support a realistic smart growth project.
The roundtable allowed us to look at what we can do to protect our natural resources from urban
sprawl. In my view, we are left with questions like, can we work together to change how we develop
our landscape? Can we change our behavior to live in greater harmony with the land, water, and
nature? We will need focus, energy, and tolerance to make these changes. We have to be real with each
other, trust each other, be willing to compromise and to pay our share for what we want done. We
have to be willing to put our energy and resources in support of water quality. A recent survey in the
Chesapeake Bay area showed that many residents see themselves as environmentalists but do not pick
up pet waste, do not test their lawns for fertilizer needs, and do not service their septic tanks.
To change our behavior we must understand the advantages of smart growth, to listen to the fears
of giving up the familiar, understand the consequences of the new, and accept and understand that
smart growth is a chance for a better quality of life that has its costs in what we give up of our
current conveniences. These are exciting possibilities but the work will be difficult. Regulations are
necessary but not the only answer. We have to understand the issues we face and be willing to
change how we treat our land. We are its stewards and we will pass this responsibility to future
generations. If we have the will and persistence to change our behavior, urban sprawl as we now
know it does not have to happen.
The discussions from the workshop will be summarized for use in developing the National
Watershed Forum scheduled for 2001 to examine institutional structures for watershed restoration
and protection called for in CWAP. For more information on CWAP, visit www.cleanwater.gov.
Notes on the National Scene
Political Drama Surrounds Final TMDL Rule
EPA Administrator Carol Browner signed a final rule to strengthen the TMDL program on July 11.
This important national program, established under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, provides
the framework for identifying and cleaning up polluted waterbodies. The rulemaking had been under
development for several years.
The rule is subject to a rider attached to the fiscal year 2001 Military Construction/Supplemental
Appropriations bill that expressly prohibits EPA from using any funds to implement new rules to
the TMDL program. Because the bill was still awaiting the President's signature when the Admini-
strator signed the rule, the rider did not prevent promulgation of the rule. However, as a consequence,
the final rule will not become effective until October 1, 2001. While implementation of the new rule
is interrupted by enactment of the rider, the program will operate under the "old" rule.
In August 1999, EPA proposed changes to its existing regulations to clarify and strengthen the
authorities of EPA, states, territories, and authorized tribes to implement the TMDL program.
EPA considered more than 34,000 comments on the proposed rulemaking and talked with
hundreds of people in public outreach and information-sharing sessions. EPA made many final
4 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
Political Drama
Surrounds Final
TMDL Rule
(continued)
changes to the regulations as a result of public comment, including
dropping the requirement to list threatened" waters, eliminating the
requirement that states give higher priority to certain impaired waters,
and removing provisions that would have required new permits for
forestry operations.
The final rule will
strengthen states' abilities to clean up polluted waters by
identifying pollution reductions needed to meet clean water
standards;
provide for a comprehensive listing of all the nation's polluted
waters (i.e., those that fail to meet state water quality standards);
encourage cost-effective cleanup by ensuring all sources of
pollution are considered in the development of cleanup plans;
and
assure that TMDLs include implementation plans that define
specific actions and schedules for meeting clean water goals.
A TMDL is essentially
a "pollution budget"
designed to restore
the health of a
waterbody not
meeting state water
quality standards.
More than 20,000
waterbodies across
America have been
identified as polluted
by states, territories,
and authorized
tribes.These waters
include more than
300,000 river and
shoreline miles and 5
million acres of lakes.
Furthermore, cleanup plans must provide "reasonable assurances" that measures to address
pollution, including polluted runoff, will be implemented within five years, when practicable. The
public will also have more opportunity to comment on the methodology, lists, prioritized
schedules, and TMDLs prior to submission to EPA.
For additional information, visit the TMDL web site at www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl.
Federal Court Says Nonpoint Sources Require TMDLs
For the first time, a federal judge has
upheld EPA's longstanding
interpretation and practice that EPA
and the states have the authority to
identify which U.S. waterways are
polluted by runoff from urban areas,
agriculture, and timber harvesting
nonpoint sources of pollution and to
identify the maximum amount of
pollutants that may enter these
waterways. The court stated that
TMDLs are authorized for nonpoint
sources and that "no substandard
river or water was immune by reason
of its sources of pollution."
"This important decision allows us to
build on our successes of completing
the task of cleaning our nation's
waters," said EPA Administrator Carol
Browner. "The Clinton-Gore
Administration has made delivering
clean, safe water to all Americans a
priority in our efforts to ensure greater
protection for the environment in
communities across the country."
The March 30 opinion by U.S. District
Judge William Alsup in San Francisco
affirms the comprehensive scope of
the Clean Water Act's TMDL program.
In the first decision to squarely
address the issue, Judge Alsup found
that Congress intended to include
nonpoint source pollution in the Clean
Water Act's water quality standards
program, and he noted that nonpoint
source pollution is the dominant water
quality problem in the United States
today.
"The court has affirmed a strong tool
for restoring America's rivers and
cleaning up pollution, regardless of its
source, " said Lois Schiffer, Assistant
Attorney General for the Environment
Division of the Justice Department.
The court heard a challenge to an EPA
decision to put the Garcia River on a
list of impaired waterways in California
and define the amount of sediment
that should be allowed to enter from
land along its banks. Although salmon
and steelhead once flourished in the
Garcia River, excessive sediment from
forestry operations now prevents the
river from supporting healthy fish. In
March 1998, EPA developed a TMDL
for sediment for the river. The Agency
also defined the reductions in
sediment that are necessary for the
river to attain the water quality
standard set by the state of California.
The American Farm Bureau Federation
and other agriculture and timber
groups filed suit, claiming that EPA
and the states should calculate
TMDLs only for pollutants that are
discharged from pipes, known as
point sources. The court rejected this
argument, holding that the Clean
Water Act is designed to provide a
comprehensive solution to the nation's
water quality problems, "without
regard to the sources of pollution."
In California, only 1 percent of
impaired waterways fail to meet water
quality standards solely because of
pollution that comes from pipes,
municipal waste treatment works, or
other point sources. According to EPA,
54 percent of California's impaired
waterways are polluted by nonpoint
sources exclusively, while another 45
percent are impaired by a combination
of point and nonpoint sources.
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
5
-------
The Clean Water Action Plan: Making a Federal Case of Partnerships
The Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) is based on establishing and strengthening partnerships to
meet the goals set forth in the Clean Water Act. With the Plan as a catalyst, federal agencies are
establishing more formal partnerships among themselves and expanding these partnerships to
include states and tribes. In addition, the Plan's principles of cooperation and coordination are
increasingly being adopted at state, tribal, regional, and local levels.
Federal Coordination Teams
While the Plan exhorts federal agencies to strengthen collaboration and partnership as well as to
coordinate activities and assistance, it is largely silent on how federal agencies should go about
accomplishing these goals, especially at the regional or field levels. Part of the answer is coming
from Federal Coordination Teams, which have been formed by agencies' regional offices to advance
the CWAP principles within the existing statutory authorities and programs of each agency. Some
FCTs existed before the Plan was issued; in some cases they either have a broad scope, including
the full range of federal program issues, or address multiple environmental issues. However, in most
parts of the country no federal teams existed to address water quality and water resource issues. Not
surprisingly, the more active FCTs are the ones that pre-existed the CWAP, such as the Southeast
Watershed Forum. The Tennessee Valley Authority has been a leader among federal agencies in its
support for the Southeast Watershed Forum by helping to coordinate regular meetings, producing a
periodic newsletter, and using other means of communication and collaboration.
Some of the FCTs are maintaining a strictly federal membership, while others are beginning to
invite states and tribes to join them. Interestingly, the newer FCTs, i.e., those formed after issuance
of the CWAP, seem to be the ones most inclined to expand their membership by inviting state and
tribal participants.
Multiple Partners Team Up at Regional Roundtables
To better support state, local, and tribal efforts in addressing watershed issues through federal
programs and policies, the FCTs are drawing on local stakeholder expertise. With funding support
from various agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration, Department of Interior, Tennessee Valley Authority, and EPA), and technical and logistical
support from these and other agencies (including the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the
National Park Service, and others), each FCT is sponsoring one or more roundtables this year to
discuss watershed management issues with a broad range of stakeholders. In most cases, the FCTs are
organizing the roundtables; in others, the federal teams are coordinating with state
agencies that have taken a lead role in involving a broad range of stakeholders. For
example, the Heartland FCT (covering Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska) is
holding separate roundtables in each state. For its Missouri Roundtable, the FCT
piggy-backed on that state's Missouri Watersheds Conference September 8-9.
Participation of all watershed stakeholders from policymakers to developers
to local landowners is a prized accomplishment at the roundtables. The
Northeast Watershed Roundtable, held in August to discuss the future of New
England's watersheds, included participants from several federal, state, and
nongovernmental organizations. These diverse participants came together to
develop specific short- and long-term recommendations that have been shaped
into a Regional Watersheds Strategy.
Findings and recommendations from more than 12 Regional Watershed
Roundtables will be summarized and presented to federal agencies' managers at
both regional and headquarters levels. These roundtables will also influence
findings included in a Watershed Restoration Progress Report (CWAP action
item #102), slated for publication by the end of 2000. The conclusions reached
at the roundtables will also be addressed in a National Watershed Forum
roundtable and other watershed-based representatives in mid-2001. The
insights and experiences of the true watershed experts gathered during the
roundtables will help guide the future direction of federal agencies in watershed
protection.
Benefits of Regional
Watershed Roundtables
S Enhance communication and promote
integrated action among local
watershed interests, business,
agriculture, tribes, and state and
federal government agencies to better
protect, manage, and restore the
region's watersheds.
S Provide forums for stakeholder
discussion of barriers to and solutions
for watershed management.
S Help stakeholders better understand
each others' perspectives and assist
in the development of innovative,
non-regulatory solutions to water
resource problems.
S Serve as clearinghouses to keep
people in touch with innovative ideas,
training opportunities, and resources
for watershed protection.
6 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
The Clean Water
Action Plan: Making
a Federal Case of
Partnerships
(continued)
Regional Watershed Roundtables
REGION
WATERSHED ROUNDTABLE
CONVENER
ROUNDTABLE DATES
Pacific Northwest
Washington State University's Center
for Sustainable Agriculture
Don Nelson (509) 335-2922
Sept. 13-14, 2000: Spokane
Sept. 6-7, 2000: Portland
Oct. 3-4, 2000: Boise
California
Watershed Management Council
Sari Sommerstram (510) 273-9066
Sept. 1, 1999
Nov. 15,1999
Feb. 2, 2000
May 1 7, 2000
All meetings were in Davis, CA
Intermountain
USDA Forest Service
Jack Blackwell or Leann Belnap
(801) 625-5156
October 16-1 7, 2000: Salt Lake City, LJT
Heartland
Groundwater Foundation
Susan Seacrest (800) 858-4844
July 2000: Kansas
Sept. 8-9, 2000: Missouri
Sept. 24-26, 2000: Nebraska
Dec. 2000: Iowa
Rocky Mountain
Montana Watercourse
Mary Ellen Wolfe (406) 994-1910
May 15-1 7, 2000: Bozeman, MT
South Central
LEAF Alliance
Laura Koesters (512) 328- 2202
Sept. 6-7, 2000: Dallas, TX
Great Lakes
Conservation Technology Information
Center
Lyn Kirschner (765) 494-9555
May 9-11, 2000: Chicago, IL
Northeast
River Network
Pat Munoz (202) 364-2550
1997 and 1998
Winter 2000
Southeast
Tennessee Valley Authority
Christine Olsenius (410) 849-2975
Aug. 98, Aug. 99,
Aug. 24-25, 2000: Birmingham, AL
Alaska
Nature Conservancy-Alaska Chapters
Paul Jackson (907) 276-3133
Feb. 10, 2000 Oct./Nov. 2000
All meetings in Anchorage, AK
Appalachia
Canaan Valley Institute
Kiena Smith (800) 922-3601
June 6-8, 2000: Shepherdstown, WV
Upper Mississippi
National Audubon Society
Dan McGuiness (651) 290-1695
September 15-1 7, 2000: Sinsinawa, Wl
States Follow Suit
There is naturally a wide range of views on the applicability of the CWAP to state and tribal
programs addressing water resource issues. Some states have seen very clear advantages to adopting
the federal agencies' CWAP principles and terminology as their own.
One state's endorsement of the CWAP is evident in a recent article in Ecostates (the journal of the
Environmental Council of the States). Susan Sylvester, Administrator of Wisconsin's Water
Division, states that "The CWAP articulates better than any other document in a long time why
America needs to take a watershed approach, and broadly, what that will look like." She argues that
states should have the lead role as CWAP is put into practice, and that they must have flexibility
while being held accountable for carrying out CWAP's goals. In her view, such flexibility and
accountability can be realized only if the various levels of government implement their water
programs through a watershed approach.
Alabama also embraces the CWAP through its own Alabama Clean Water Action Plan. It has
developed a CWAP process that echos the logic implicit in the federal CWAP. The process includes
(1) identifying impaired waters; (2) identifying priority watersheds through the state's Unified
Watershed Assessment; and (3) developing and implementing Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies for those priority watersheds. Alabama's CWAP also envisions combining voluntary
environmental stewardship with mandatory TMDL actions and schedules, incentive and market
methods, strong stakeholder participation, and reliable environmental indicators.
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
7
-------
The Clean Water
Action Plan: Making
a Federal Case of
Partnerships
(continued)
Partnerships to be Spotlighted in New Report
This new era of watershed-level partnering will be highlighted in a new federal report on watershed
success stories that will be available this fall from the CWAP partner agencies. The report will
highlight these successes by looking at individual case studies from around the country that
embody the principles and spirit of partnership of the CWAP. All of the case studies document the
degree to which watershed restoration must be a cooperative effort. For example, restoration efforts
in the Wissahickon Watershed in Pennsylvania have been successful because of the efforts of 120
partner organizations, and in one subwatershed of the Bad River in South Dakota, 9 of every 10
landowners have participated in watershed restoration activities.
Although considerable progress has been made in carrying out specific CWAP action items, the
most lasting impact of the CWAP might very well be the adoption of CWAP principles through
regional, state, and local partnerships. CWAP agencies hope that with their involvement these
partnerships will grow and spark the creation of more partnerships in the future.
[For more information, contact Len Fieckenstein, Office of Water, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Mail Code 4101, Washington, DC 20460. Phone: (202) 260-5332; fax: (202) 401-3372; e-mail:
fieckenstein.leonard@epa.gov. For additional information visit the CWAP web site at www.cleanwater.gov.]
USGS Science and Information:
Helping Communities Manage the Effects of Urban Sprawl
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is working hard to provide local officials with scientific data
and information to help develop community-based watershed management solutions that meet
both societal and environmental needs. Local government officials are often tasked with making
important growth-related and resource-management decisions that directly or indirectly affect our
water resources. Many times they are equipped with only a limited understanding of the
watershed's natural resources and the potential consequences of new development. Decisionmakers
need accurate, up-to-date information to provide for sustainable development and to manage
competing societal priorities.
USGS Uses Watershed Models to Solve Real Problems
Natural resource management conflicts are often at the core of problems associated with growth.
Resources that are taken for one use may also be needed and valued for other uses. In the Ipswich
River Basin, a 155-square mile watershed that supplies water to more than 300,000 residents in
northeastern Massachusetts, urbanization and increasing water supply demands have led to
reductions in streamflow that threaten aquatic habitat, water quality, and recreational use of the
river. USGS scientists, in cooperation with the Massachusetts Departments of Environmental
Management and Environmental Protection, developed a numerical watershed model to simulate
the hydrology and complex water use patterns in the basin. Model results are helping stakeholders
water suppliers, environmental groups, and regulatory agencies understand that ground
water and surface water need to be managed as a single resource and agree on minimum flow
targets. Project partners are currently using the model to evaluate specific ground water withdrawal
options and to evaluate the potential beneficial effects of increasing base flows by returning treated
wastewater to the Ipswich River Basin.
Another byproduct of urban sprawl is local flooding. Increases in impervious surface area can
drastically alter the hydrology of a watershed, leading to floods the most costly natural hazard
facing watershed managers today. Flooding can result in extensive loss of public and private
property, erosion and sedimentation, contamination, health concerns, and loss of life. Quantifying
changes in streamflow that result from urbanization is critical for planning and designing bridges,
culverts, stormwater drainage systems, detention basins, and other stormwater management
facilities. Oftentimes data on stormwater runoff volume and floodflow in specific areas are not
readily available, and future changes in these flow characteristics that might result from
urbanization are not easy to predict. For this information, planners and engineers have come to
rely on computer-based models that predict the outcome of real-life situations.
8 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
In Camillus, New York, a suburb of Syracuse that has undergone recent growth and expects
continued residential and commercial development, concern over the hydrologic effects of future
development has prompted efforts to predict flooding. The USGS developed a precipitation-runoff
model for the Ninemile Creek watershed to assess the timing and magnitude of peak discharges that
might result from future development when stormwater detention basins are used. The model
showed town planners and engineers the benefits that could be realized by installing detention basins
and the potential adverse effects when basins are sized and placed so that their peak outflow coincides
with the peak main channel flow. To date, the town has been using the modeling results to analyze
flooding potential and to further investigate the potential effects of stormwater detention basins in the
Ninemile Creek basin. Other communities in New York are recognizing the value of this type of
analysis and are considering the use of hydrologic modeling in planning for future development.
USGS Provides Real Time Streamflow Data
In an age when so many demands are continually placed on our limited water resources, problems
and solutions must be prioritized and addressed immediately. The availability of accurate,
up-to-date information is critical in the decisionmaking process. The USGS maintains an extensive
network of more than 7,000 gaging stations on streams throughout the nation, most of which can
provide data on a real-time basis. Real-time data can be a tremendous asset before, during, and
after a flood to help prevent, minimize, and assess flood damages.
As part of the Real-Time Hazards Initiative, the USGS is enhancing and improving the
streamgaging network. With the assistance of the National Weather Service, state and local
emergency managers, and other network cooperators, a number of sites have been selected at which
either a new streamgaging station has been installed or a discontinued station has been reactivated
in this year. In addition, several existing streamgaging stations are being "flood-hardened," and
many will have equipment upgrades to enable real-time data transmission.
USGS hopes to further improve and enhance the national streamgaging network in the future to
ensure that the information critical to emergency forecasters and managers during extreme events is
available when and where it is most needed. This information is also very valuable for drought
monitoring and for many recreational and development planning activities. USGS real-time water
data can be accessed at http://water.usgs.gov/realtime.html
[For more information on how the USGS can assist your local watershed planning effort, contact Dave
Grason, Associate Regional Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 433, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive,
Reston, VA 20192. Phone (703) 648-5293; e-mail: dgrason@usgs.gov.]
Notes from the States, Tribes, and Localities
Nutrient Rules Adopted for Tar-Pamlico River Basin
North Carolina is taking another step toward reducing nutrients in its coastal watersheds. On July
13, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted urban
stormwater and nutrient management rules to curb excessive nutrient inputs in the
5,400-square-mile Tar-Pamlico River basin. This complements the adoption of an earlier riparian
buffer rule and marks the second rule-making step in a progressive effort to limit nonpoint inputs
of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Pamlico Sound on the North Carolina coast.
History
In 1989, the EMC designated the Tar-Pamlico Basin as a "nutrient-sensitive water" after increases
in fish kills and harmful algal blooms were attributed to elevated nutrient levels in the water.
Pursuant to the designation, the state developed a nutrient management strategy for the basin. The
first phase of the strategy addressed point sources by establishing an innovative nutrient trading
program between point and nonpoint sources (an association of point sources exceeding its annual
nutrient loading cap would fund the implementation of best management practices by agricultural
nonpoint sources to offset the cap exceedence). The second phase, adopted by the EMC in 1994,
required that phosphorus contributions be held at 1991 levels (i.e., maintain 194,000 kg P/yr) and
nitrogen contributions be reduced an additional 30 percent from 1991 levels (i.e., reduce the load
USGS Science and
Information:
Helping
Communities
Manage the Effects
of Urban Sprawl
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
9
-------
by 583,000 kg N/yr). The EMC intended these goals to be achieved largely through the point
source nutrient loading cap and voluntary implementation of best management practices.
In 1998, after determining that a voluntary approach was not achieving the nutrient strategy's
goals, the EMC called for development of nonpoint source reduction rules. Staff from the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality assembled stakeholder teams to consider rules in seven subject
areas (atmospheric emission of nitrogen, onsite wastewater, erosion and sedimentation from
construction sites, restoration of wetlands, buffers and streams; agriculture, nutrient management,
and urban stormwater). The teams produced draft rules on three subjects: agriculture, stormwater,
and nutrient management. In addition, a fourth set of rules on riparian buffer protection was
included based on the work of a legislatively mandated stakeholder committee on buffer protection
in the adjacent Neuse River Basin. Public comments were taken from June through December
1999. Two public hearings in August and September 1999, drew a total of 287 attendees and 234
people submitted written comments.
In December 1999, the EMC adopted riparian buffer protection rules as a first regulatory step
toward reducing basin nonpoint nutrient loading. In July 2000, the EMC adopted urban
stormwater and nutrient management rules that will become effective April 1, 2001, pending
review by the General Assembly in January 2001. The EMC has delayed adoption of an agriculture
rule pending consideration of issues such as grazing requirements, the need for resources to support
implementation of BMPs, and the need for a simple, easy-to-understand rule. However, adoption
of an agriculture rule is anticipated in late 2000. The new rules complement ongoing efforts to
meet a TMDL developed several years ago for the Tar-Pamlico basin. "The new rules are the next
step in the management plan designed to achieve a 30 percent reduction in nitrogen," explained
Richard Gannon, Nonpoint Source Water Quality Planner with the Division of Water Quality.
Similar Rules, Different Basin
The new riparian buffer, urban stormwater, and nutrient management rules for the Tar-Pamlico
Basin mirror regulations that were enacted in the adjacent Neuse River Basin in 1998 (more
information on the Neuse Basin rules is available in News-Notes Issue #58). The riparian buffer
rules require that existing riparian areas remain intact in all future development projects or land-use
changes. The stormwater rule will require six municipalities and five counties in the Tar-Pamlico
Basin to develop and implement stormwater programs within two and a half years. These local
programs will require that all new development be designed to meet the nitrogen and phosphorus
loading goals, and achieve results in no net increase in flow from a 1-year, 24-hour storm event.
The local programs must also educate developers, businesses, and homeowners, identify and
remove illicit discharges, and make efforts to treat runoff from existing developed areas. Each
program may be tailored to the needs of the locality, notes Gannon. "We've given the local
governments flexibility to design their own programs, but many of the local programs will likely be
patterned after the programs being put in place for the Neuse River Basin."
The nutrient management rule will require everyone who applies fertilizer in the basin, except
residential landowners who apply fertilizer to their own property, either to take state-sponsored
nutrient management training or have a management plan in place for the lands on which they
apply fertilizer. The Division of Water Quality will implement an education program for
residential fertilizer use. For more information on the new rules and the implementation strategy,
see http://h2o. enr.state .nc.us/nps/tarp.htm.
[For more information, contact Richard Gannon, NC Division of Water Quality, 1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617. Phone: (919) 733-5083, ext. 356; e-mail: rich.gannon@ncmail.net.]
Process and Pitfalls Awaiting Lessons from
EPA Pilot TMDL Studies for Mercury
While TMDLs are often developed on a watershed basis, pollutants such as mercury involve
sources spread over a much larger airshed. As of December 1998, 40 states had issued fish
consumption advisories for mercury, and a number of states had specifically identified atmospheric
deposition of mercury as a cause of water quality impairment. To determine how to take air sources
Nutrient Rules
Adopted for
Tar-Pamlico
River Basin
(continued)
10 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
Process and
Pitfalls Awaiting
Lessons from
EPA Pilot TMDL
Studies for Mercury
(continued)
into account in developing TMDLs, EPA launched two pilot TMDL studies in early 1999. EPA
chose sites in Florida and Wisconsin based on state interest and the availability of data on mercury
to use in modeling, among other criteria. The technical process and results of the pilots were to
function as examples for other states, tribes, and territories that are faced with developing TMDLs
for waterbodies impaired by mercury. The pilots are cooperative efforts between EPA and the states
of Wisconsin and Florida.
As part of the TMDL pilots, EPA also planned to examine legal and policy issues, such as approaches
for addressing mercury from sources outside a state. Under the existing TMDL rule and policies,
TMDLs identify how much a pollutant loading needs to be reduced in order to meet state water
quality standards. However, TMDLs themselves don't provide the authority to address sources of
pollutants, including air sources. Thus, other mechanisms to address sources need to be identified.
study site: Devils Lake, Wisconsin
Although Devil's Lake is in a pristine 2.6-square-mile forested watershed in Wisconsin, it was listed
on the state's 303(d) list in 1998 for elevated levels of mercury found in the walleye caught there.
Within a 25-mile radius, two coal-fired power plants and incinerators emit mercury; some mercury
may also be deposited from sources in surrounding states.
To conduct the pilot, EPA needed to find a site with existing data instead of having to collect new
data. EPA chose the Devil's Lake site after an initial data gathering effort uncovered a rich mercury
monitoring history. Doug Knauer of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
had been conducting studies in the area with a team of researchers experienced in mercury
pollution, including scientists from Canada and Sweden. "Why a seepage lake with no aquatic
tributaries would have mercury advisories was the scope of our problem," Knauer said. Other data
from the Wisconsin Emissions Inventory and other state data repositories will also be used.
The Mercury Cycling Model (MCM) will be used for the aquatic modeling component of the
pilot. The model traces mercury's geochemical and biological cycling at the air-water,
water-sediment, water-biological, and sediment-biological interfaces. Using different levels of
assumed mercury loads to the lake, the modelers plan to develop scenarios in which fish tissue
concentrations could be brought down to acceptable levels.
"Devil's Lake was an ideal candidate to complete an atmospheric study," said Knauer. "We had the
MCM model for how mercury was behaving in the lake we just needed to know how much was
being deposited to it."
To calculate atmospheric deposition, participants in the TMDL pilot project plan to use a
numerical model called the Regulatory Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD),
which provides wet and dry deposition rates for mercury over the entire nation. The REMSAD
model can account for different aspects of the air deposition process, including meteorological
processes and chemical transformations of mercury in the atmosphere. The model will be used to
examine the relative contributions of mercury from sources within the state as compared to
neighboring states and the nation as a whole. Sensitivity analyses will
also be conducted to determine how changes in various parameters
affect model results. Parameters to be examined include
meteorological conditions, uncertainties in emissions inventories, and
speciation, which is the amount of mercury emitted in the divalent
form versus the elemental form. Divalent mercury tends to be
deposited more locally, while elemental mercury is transported over
longer distances. Thus, uncertainties regarding the speciation of
mercury can translate into uncertainties regarding how much mercury
is from local versus more distant sources.
Steps in the Mercury Pilot TMDL
1. Data compilation & model calibration
2. Complete baseline model runs
3. Model mercury reduction scenarios
4. Initial analysis of federal and state programs
5. Draft pilot TMDL study reports
6. Stakeholder and expert review
7. Revised pilot TMDL study reports
8. Report on lessons learned from both pilots
Although some initial data and model preparation has been
conducted for the Devil's Lake TMDL pilot, full-scale modeling has
not yet begun in earnest for a number of reasons. For example, EPA
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 11
-------
Process and
Pitfalls Awaiting
Lessons from
EPA Pilot TMDL
Studies for Mercury
(continued)
EPA's Mercury TMDLs site
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/wrkpln2.html
has been making refinements in the most recent toxics emissions inventory, which contains
estimates from each state of total mercury emissions, as well as mercury speciation from each
source category. As REMSAD provides nationwide deposition, this national emissions inventory is
one of the key inputs to the REMSAD model. When the inventory and other model inputs are
ready, baseline conditions of mercury depositions can be simulated. EPA expects to begin baseline
modeling by the end of this year. This will be followed by an analysis of the legal and policy
options for addressing mercury from air in order to reduce mercury in fish tissue to acceptable
levels. The analysis will include modeling of reduction scenarios that simulate the impact of
existing or planned federal and state mercury reduction initiatives.
study SITE: Florida Everglades
The Florida pilot TMDL covers a roughly 700-square-mile portion of the Everglades located about
30 miles west of Fort Lauderdale. This area is on the state's list of impaired waterbodies because of
high levels of mercury in largemouth bass and other fish.
The atmospheric deposition model for this pilot is the Regional Meteorological Pollutant Chemistry
and Transport Model developed by the University of Michigan Air Quality Lab. The model uses
existing mercury data collected by the state of Florida during several studies, including the Florida
Atmospheric Mercury Study (FAMS), the South Florida Atmospheric Monitoring Pilot Study, and
the National Atmospheric Deposition Program, which has data for three sites near the Everglades.
These data, along with rainfall chemistry data, are used to evaluate weather conditions and
atmospheric flows, and thus calibrate the model to monthly data available from FAMS. In the pilot
TMDL, the model is further sensitized to variations in meteorology and thus provides both wet
and dry deposition rates for the study area. The water model is an Everglades adaption of the
Mercury Cycling Model used at the Devil's Lake site and renamed E-MCM.
Because of the availability of data, initial model results of the Florida TMDL pilot study have
already been developed. Early model findings suggest that anthropogenic sources in south Florida
are contributing mercury to the atmosphere that is then being transported over the Everglades.
Based on comments received from peer review, the state of Florida will be further refining initial
results by conducting additional model runs and sensitivity analyses. Once re-done, the TMDL
modeling report will be available for stakeholder review.
According to Randy Waite of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "The pilots are
an opportunity for us to go through the process of full-scale development of an air-water interface
model. We are trying to use these cases as examples in building the technical and programmatic
tools that other states can use for this kind of complex pollutant." Ruth Chemerys of EPA's Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds notes that "From a process standpoint the pilots have
provided valuable lessons regarding what works and doesn't work when trying to link the results of
the different models." For example, modelers found that it is important to be very clear about the
specific elements of the data being shared.
EPA plans to develop a "Lessons Learned"
document on both pilot projects by the summer of
2001. It will outline the processes and pitfalls to be
expected in studying a pollutant whose effect is
critical, and whose sources are hard to narrow
down.
Mercury Deposition on the Web
USGS Mercury Studies in the Florida Everglades
http://snowball.er.usgs.gOv/sfep/element6/task6.7/fs-166-96/index.shtml
National Atmospheric Deposition Program
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu (Click on the Mercury Deposition Network Page)
South Florida Water Management Program
http://www.sfwmd.gov
Toxics Release Inventory
http://www.epa.gov/tri
Florida Atmospheric Mercury Study
http://gill.tamug.tamu.edu/FAMS/Fams.htm
[For more information, contact Ruth Chemerys, U.S.
EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20460. Phone: (202) 260-9038; e-mail:
chemerys.ruth@epa.gov; or Randy Waite, U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Phone: (919) 541-5447; e-mail: waite.randy@epa.gov.]
12 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
Notes on Watershed Management
Source Water Protection Through Land Acquisition
How can you protect your water quality from the impacts of development? Manage the
development with a plan that directs development away from sensitive areas. The Trust for Public
Land (TPL), a national conservation organization, has helped many communities protect their
watersheds with land and easement purchase programs. TPL recently released a report, Building
Green Infrastructure: Land Conservation as a Watershed Protection Strategy (available on the Internet
at www.tpl.org), that highlights some of its experience and findings. The report specifically details
the water quality protection efforts of Austin, Texas (see box); Barneget Bay, New Jersey (see box);
Mountain Island Lake, North Carolina; and Indian River Lagoon, Florida.
Using the four diverse case studies as models, TPL notes five common features that helped make
these land acquisition programs successful:
1. Land conservation projects are usually driven by several motivations in addition to
clean water protection, including habitat preservation, recreational opportunities, and
growth management.
2. Decisions about land acquisition and public investment must be based on credible
scientific or economic information, such as monitoring data, cost analyses, and
modeling scenarios that project development impacts to water quality.
3. Polls and surveys consistently show strong public support for land conservation
programs that protect water quality, especially as the public gains a greater
understanding of where their drinking water comes from and how runoff affects their
rivers, streams, and lakes.
Linking land protection programs to water quality protection programs requires
partnerships between public and private players around planning and funding; this
often requires ballot initiatives and broader public involvement.
4. Successful land acquisition often takes place in combination with a strong regulatory
framework, such as zoning, and this complementary relationship works even better
where state and federal programs are supportive.
A New Tool and New Partnerships
TPL's report details efforts by these communities to protect areas
important to the quality of their water for both drinking
water and clean water goals. All of the case study communities
used a combination of regulatory and land acquisition tools to
protect key lands and meet clean water goals, based on
monitoring and data collection that identified the most
environmentally sensitive areas of their watershed. Funding was
leveraged from land acquisition and water protection programs,
and in some cases raised through voter-approved state and local
funding programs. The communities used both qualitative and
quantitative data to target and prioritize parcels for
conservation, as well as monitoring and modeling to measure
the benefits of the investment in watershed protection.
Austin has used a combination of regulatory and
non-regulatory means to protect its drinking water supply
over the past 20 years. When early efforts using
restrictions on impervious cover, requirements for stream
buffers, treatment of stormwater, and erosion controls
proved unsuccessful, Austin residents adopted a
resolution in 1992 requiring further limits on impervious
cover. At the same time they approved a $20 million bond
act that would use land acquisition to protect the most
critical area around Barton Springs, a large spring pool in
the city of Austin. In 1998, residents went a step further
and approved a $65 million revenue bond to purchase
land and easements within a designated drinking water
protection zone over their drinking water source, the
Edwards Aquifer. Residents agreed to pay slightly higher
taxes to cover the expense because they felt land
acquisition investments could protect their water, and the
combination of land acquisition and regulation could guide
growth away from sensitive areas in the watershed.
All efforts included rigorous public education and community
involvement. "In all of these communities, you had land-use
planners, water managers, and habitat protection specialists
talking to each other across the table, sharing goals, and
leveraging resources in ways none of them thought
possible, "explained TPL's Kathy Blaha.
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 13
-------
Barnegat Bay, New Jersey
In the coastal watershed of Barnegat Bay, a partnership of
federal, state, and local players has protected land and water
resources by buying land with a mix of funding sources. Early
efforts by the Pinelands Commission, TPL's Barnegat Bay
"Century Plan," and EPA's designation of the Bay as part of its
National Estuary Program (NEP) provided the background
data, the forum for partnerships, and the momentum for
implementing a major land conservation program. To date,
approximately 120,000 acres have been acquired and are
being managed cooperatively for groundwater protection,
marine habitat, and public recreation and beach access. Most
recently, TPL helped Ocean County develop its own open
space trust fund to make it eligible for New Jersey's $1.5 billion
open space matching fund program. As a result of TPL's and
the county's efforts, voters approved a Natural Lands Trust in
1997, funded by an increase in local property taxes. This tax is
raising nearly $4 million annually to match state and local
funding for land acquisition. The key to the Barnegat Bay
protection effort has been the NEP leadership and the
volunteer monitoring programs that provide information on
ecological data in the Bay for resource managers and elected
officials to identify critical lands for protection.
The hard part is convincing water managers to take the first
step, explained Blaha. "Often local water managers are
unfamiliar with land acquisition. First, they are not familiar
with negotiating and buying real estate and meeting the
state and local acquisition requirements. Second, they are
uncertain how they'll manage the land once they've acquired
it; and, finally, they can't measure the water quality benefits
of land conservation as easily as with other tools."
Fortunately, TPL and many other land conservation
organizations are available to partner with local governments
and water managers and help them through land acquisition
and management. "The biggest challenge is linking
conservation to reductions in pollutant loads. We need more
opportunity to collect data and conduct modeling to show
how land conservation can reduce and mitigate runoff with
measurable results, " explained Blaha. "We're continuing to
work with public agencies and university-based research
teams to more closely link land conservation with improved
water quality. Our goal is to use demonstration projects to
strengthen the case with more monitoring data to more
easily measure what we know is happening."
[For more information, contact Kathy Blaha, Trust for Public Land, 666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite
401, Washington, DC 20003. Phone: (202) 543-7552; e-mail: Kathy.Biaha@tpLorg.]
Gardeners Willing to Try Nonchemical Landscape Practices
By Sharon Omahen, Georgia Agricultural Experiment Stations
Georgia gardeners want lush lawns and award-winning vegetables. But they also care about the
damage pesticides and fertilizers can cause the environment, says a University of Georgia survey.
Researchers in the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CAES) are crafting
guidelines to help homeowners choose garden and landscape BMPs that don't harm the
environment. But they needed information.
What Are Georgia Gardeners Doing?
"Before we can develop guidelines, we need to know how Georgia gardeners use pesticides and
fertilizers," said Susan Varlamoff, the survey coordinator. "The survey results are helping us
determine the level of information we need to put into the homeowner BMP manual." The survey
was funded by the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division of the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources. The BMP manual will be developed through an EPA grant.
Both projects are part of a five-year program aimed at educating homeowners on reducing the
environmental effects of improper gardening. "Our goal is to reduce nonpoint source pollution,"
said Varlamoff. "We're also searching for ways to provide correct gardening information to
homeowners."
Gardeners Want to Use Environmentally Friendly Products
During the summer of 1999, 400 Georgians took part in the survey, which was designed by a team
of CAES researchers and implemented by the UGA Survey Research Center. The survey asked
gardeners about general and specific practices. It asked, too, where they get their gardening
information.
"We were surprised to find that people are already gardening to protect the environment,"
Varlamoff said. "Of the people we surveyed, 67 percent are choosing products they believe to be
environmentally friendly." The survey showed that 45 percent of Georgians are composting
household and lawn waste for use in their home landscapes.
But where do they learn about gardening? "Most of the people we surveyed said they get their
information from neighbors," Varlamoff said. "Their second largest source was television."
14 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
The study also showed that they prefer to get their information where they buy their gardening
supplies. "We need to know where our efforts need to be directed and how people want to receive
this information," Varlamoff said. "Our goal is to educate the gardening public for everyone's
benefit. People need to know, for example, not to apply fertilizers when a heavy rainstorm is
expected," she said. "The chemicals won't have time to be absorbed into the soil before they're
washed away. They also need to apply only as much as the grass or plants can use."
Open to Alternatives
Another key question was whether Georgia gardeners are open to using nonchemical ways to
control pests. "It's one thing for our college's researchers to develop and test nonchemical methods
of control," she said. "But this can be effective only if people are willing to adopt these methods.
We needed to know if people are open to planting pest-resistant plant varieties or applying
insecticidal soaps instead of spraying chemicals."
The answer? Most are very willing to try. Of the people surveyed, 69 percent said they want to learn
more about alternative ways to control pests, and 72 percent are willing to plant pest-resistant varieties.
"People are becoming more and more aware of alternative methods because they're becoming more
available in gardening centers," Varlamoff said. "You can even buy lady bugs over the counter now."
Weed-free Lawns are a Top Priority
But the quest for the perfect, weed-free lawn is also a top priority. The survey found that:
67 percent rated a weed-free lawn as very important.
41 percent use herbicides to control weeds.
23 percent apply fungicides to control diseases.
63 percent apply insecticides to control insects.
"All these chemical controls can contribute to runoff pollution, " Varlamoff said.
Varlamoff is confident a BMP manual would help Georgia gardeners and the environment. "Now
that we know the kinds of information Georgia gardeners want and need, we're developing our
BMP manual," she said. "The manual will first be used to train people who enroll in the University
of Georgia's Advanced Master Gardeners Program through the county extension offices," she said.
"The information will eventually be available through all media: newspapers, television, radio, fax,
newsletters, and on the Internet at http://ugacescn.ces.uga.edu." CAES researchers expect to
complete the BMP manual by fall 2001.
[For more information, contact Susan Varlamoff, Public Relations Coordinator, Cowart Building, 1109
Experiment St., Griffin, GA 30223. Phone: (770) 229-3367; e-mail: svarlamo@gaes.griffin.peachnet.edu.]
Why Do (or Don't) Local Government Officials Participate
in Watershed Planning Efforts
EDITOR'S NOTE: Adapted from Coastlines, a publication of the Urban Harbors Institute at the Univer-
sity of Massachusetts.
One of the problems facing any watershed planning effort is to engage people from local
governments in the process. The National Estuary Program's (NEP) Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP) encourages the involvement of local governmental officials in both
the planning and implementation phases. Local government officials include both town or city
employees (planners, managers, etc.) and citizen board members (boards of health, conservation
commissions, selectmen, etc.). They bring knowledge and expertise on local conditions and are
uniquely positioned to rally public support needed to implement management plan actions.
Despite the significance of their role, very little is known about the factors that encourage or
constrain their participation in environmental policymaking.
To reveal more about the participation of local government officials in watershed planning, a team of
social scientists with the nonprofit Social and Environmental Research Institute developed a study
focused on NEPs with funding from the National Science Foundation. The involvement of three
Gardeners Willing
to Try Nonchemical
Landscape
Practices
(continued)
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 15
-------
Why Do (or Don't)
Local Government
Officials Participate
in Watershed
Planning Efforts
NEPs was investigated: Massachusetts Bays, New Hampshire Estuaries, and Casco Bay. These three
NEPs had expressed interest in pursuing this topic and had similar regional and political settings.
With assistance from the directors of the selected NEPs, the scientists compiled a list of local
government officials, excluding, by definition, state and federal employees. Although regional or
county government plays a smaller role in New England, several people from regional planning
commissions were interviewed. Thirty-five local government officials were interviewed concerning
the factors that entered into their decision to participate.
The results from the interviews can be grouped into three categories of factors influencing people's
decisions. The first category included factors unique to an individual's experience, skills, interests,
or beliefs. For example, important concerns in this category included knowledge of the other
people involved in the project. Also significant were individual attitudes toward learning new
things and meeting new people, and dealing with conflict. Some cited a strong environmental ethic
or a sense of civic or social duty as important factors. Others spoke about whether their
involvement would contribute to their own personal education and growth (Will I get anything
out of this?) as well as the project's success (Are my skills needed here?) Are they just looking for
free labor or will I get something from this?
A second category of factors influencing their decision involved issues beyond the control of the
individual. These frequently related to social, political, or economic considerations. Some
municipalities discouraged officials from participating because they "knew they had dirty laundry
and did not want it aired." Other people were instructed by their town manager to attend as part
of their job. Some people did not participate because citizen awareness of environmental problems
with the estuary was low or nonexistent in their community. While a tradition of regional
cooperation might be enough to encourage some local governmental officials to participate, others
made a careful cost-benefit analysis of whether their time would be worth it for the community.
The third group of factors related to the way the NEP was managed. A prominent issue was the
ability to make real progress based on clear objectives and competent leadership. Participating local
government officials attributed their involvement to good group dynamics, a sense of camaraderie,
and regular face-to-face contact that builds friendships and strong working relationships.
Non-participating local government officials attributed their lack of involvement to a feeling of a
lack of respect or that their input was not valued. Some felt that the NEP did not care about local
problems, but was taking advantage of free labor. Others complained of poorly facilitated meetings,
needlessly acrimonious discussions, a measurable lack of progress, and inconvenient meeting times
and locations. Was I directly invited? Was I called? When I arrived, was I welcomed? Was my input
valued? Was I respected?
What can coastal managers and watershed organizations like the NEP do to entice local govern-
ment officials to participate? The study results suggest they could focus on the first and third groups
of factors. This means focusing attention on producing a working environment that respects all
voices, builds a sense of camaraderie, gives real power to the participants, clearly states the objectives
and timetable, and makes clear progress on these objectives. They are more likely to participate if the
watershed project first learns about local problems and incorporates these into the NEP's objectives.
Going out into the communities, listening to concerns, and inviting local participation are much
more productive ways to secure the involvement of local government officials than merely sending a
form letter to the town clerk, mayor's office, or county commissioners.
NEPs and others should also use knowledge of the first group of factors to focus recruitment efforts
on local government officials more disposed toward participating. This means seeking out people
who have a strong environmental ethic, enjoy working collaboratively with peers, take a regional
perspective, and pursue goals linked to the project's objectives.
Invitations to new participants should include announcements listing existing participants and
provide opportunities for networking and learning. For NEPs, mini-grants have been tremendously
successful because they enable a local government official to make progress on his or her local
agenda while remaining connected to the watershed project.
16 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
Why Do (or Don't) "A lack of time" is everyone's first response to the question of why they don't become involved. But
Local Government this research suggests that it is more a matter of setting priorities than the availability of time itself.
Officials Participate People make time for things that are most important to them. The challenge for watershed
in Watershed planning and community-based environmental protection is to invigorate local support by
Planning Efforts addressing local problems, and do so in a coordinated manner that enhances mutual benefits and
makes progress on regional problems.
[For more information, contact Thomas Webler, Social and Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box
253, Leverett, MA 01054; Phone: (413) 625-9046 ore-mail: twebler@crocker.com.]
Agricultural Notes
Cattle to the Water or Water to the Cattle?
Until recently, Idaho water right law ran counter to environmental stewardship. Idaho ranchers
who tried to improve stream and riparian health by building pipe diversions from a stream to water
cattle away from a riparian zone stood to lose their existing water right date, known as a priority
date. Historical precedence dictates the priority date, determining the order of access to the stream's
water in the event of a shortage. In an area thirsty for water, a priority date is too precious to lose.
Luckily, Idaho has recently passed a law that addresses the problem.
Water Right History
Before 1971, an Idaho water right, called an appropriation because it is the private right to the use
of public waters, could be established simply by diverting water and putting it to beneficial use.
Even though water was not diverted, in-stream livestock watering was also considered a beneficial
use, and a valid water right. Each right came with a priority date, simply the date when the
beneficial use was established. In 1978, a statute was passed requiring all pre-existing water rights
and dates to be recorded by way of a statutory claim. The state has a public record of such claims,
which is key in the arbitration of disputes. In the event of water shortage an older priority date has
first claim to water over a more recent date.
After 1971, the process of acquiring a water right was formalized through a system of application,
permit, and licensing. This required public notice, possible court hearings if protests were
registered, and various filing and field examination costs. The appropriation process, though
suitable for the modern time period, was time-consuming and expensive. Hence, if a rancher,
despite beneficial use of a stream on his/her land wanted to build a diversion to water his cattle
outside the stream, he/she would have to go through this new application process for acquiring a
water right. The new water right would be assigned a current date. Economically, and in terms of
priority access to water, it ran counter to environmental sense.
The law put farmers like Eric Davis, a cattle rancher near Bruneau, Idaho in a bind. "With all the
concerns over streams on the 303(d) list" he said, "I knew I had to fence off my cattle from going
into the stream. And when I did, I got myself into another box, because I had to pump water to
my cattle, and that required a permit and I was going to lose my priority date." His priority date
was from the early 1900s.
A Solution to the Dilemma
In response to cases such as Davis', a coalition composed of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Idaho Department of Water Resources, Idaho Cattlemen's Association, and the Idaho
Water Users (an association of irrigation districts and canal companies) successfully introduced
Idaho senate bill 1419, known as the "off-stream livestock watering right." This bill will make it
easier for ranchers to construct diversions from streams to water their cattle without losing their
historical priority date.
Effective July 1, 2000, the new bill allows a rancher with a valid in-stream livestock water right to
convert it to an off-stream right by filing a simple form along with a $20 fee. The off-stream right
essentially replaces the in-stream right and is not technically a new water right. The bill is also
conscious of limiting consumption, stipulating that this water right is valid only for operations of
up to 1,000 animal units and requiring that excess water be pumped back into the stream. All these
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 17
-------
conditions worked well for ranchers like Erik Davis, who are making the effort to run a water
quality conscious cattle operation.
Ranchers who are nudging their cattle watering out of the stream through this expedited method
still have difficulties to contend with. They must still construct off-stream watering systems (tanks,
troughs, pumps), and fence off riparian areas so stream quality can be restored. In drier areas,
where trees only grow close to waterbodies, ranchers sometimes have to find ways to lure the cattle
away from streamside shade.
Cattle behavior also poses obstacles. As is well known, it is easier to lead a horse, or in this case a
cow, to water than it is to make it drink. However, recent scientific studies indicate that cattle will
drink water that is brought to them and not necessarily drift back to the streams. Stan Boyd, the
executive director of the Idaho Wool Growers Association, was enthusiastic about studies presented
at a 1997 conference, showing that alternate watering sources near streams with no fencing
resulted in cattle residency times in streams dropping by 70 percent or more (Southeast Sustainable
Animal Waste Management Workshop, GA, 1997). Accordingly, sediment, phosphorus, and other
loads were also reduced significantly making the new Idaho water right conversion law
encouraging news for both the ranchers and the streams.
[For more information, contact Don A. Essig, TMDL Program Specialist, Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton, Boise, ID 83706-1255. Phone: (208) 373-0119; e-mail:
dessig@deq.state.id. us.]
Application Plan Improves Drinking Water
Monroe City's water supply was in trouble. Atrazine levels in the city's drinking water reservoir had
hovered at or just below the water quality standard of 3 parts per billion several times during recent
years. To address the problem, the Missouri city developed a watershed management plan to
improve and protect water quality. Part of this plan called for the development and implementation
of integrated crop and pest management programs to prevent field losses of pesticides, nutrients,
and sediment. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), in partnership with the
Missouri Corn Growers Association, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and the
University of Missouri Extension Service, developed an innovative, two-pass atrazine management
program. The program successfully reduced overall atrazine levels in the drinking water supply and
maintained cost-effective weed control.
Atrazine Runoff Leads to Water Contamination
The Route J watershed, located in northeast Missouri, supports approximately 1,560 acres of corn
and milo. Normally, crop growers control weeds by applying a blend of atrazine and other
herbicides at the start of the growing season in May. The pre-emergent application of 1.5 to 2
pounds active ingredient atrazine per acre was sufficient to control weeds all summer; but the
method came at a price.
Enough atrazine was running off the fields after application to threaten the drinking water supply of
Monroe City. Instead of installing an expensive water treatment system to remove the atrazine, the
city hoped to reduce the atrazine pollution at its source. Project managers determined that the
heaviest rains in the region fall in May and June, during or shortly after the traditional atrazine
application, increasing the likelihood that the herbicide would be carried away by stormwater runoff
before being absorbed by the already saturated soil. Managers hypothesized that if the application
could be held off until after the rain, and applied to drier soils, atrazine runoff might be reduced.
The Solution
Project managers worked with growers to develop a two-pass atrazine application program.
Growers agreed to test the program on approximately 94 percent of the acres in production.
Farmers applied the atrazine as part of a planned sequential herbicide program at a total rate of 1
pound of active ingredient atrazine per acre "post-emerge" in mid-June. "By applying the atrazine
later in the growing season we hoped to miss the big rains that lead to runoff," explained Troy
18 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
Cattle to the
Water or Water
to the Cattle?
(continued)
Atrazine
-------
Atrazine
Application Plan
Improves
Drinking Water
(continued)
These increased costs were offset by a series of economic and technical assistance incentives. Local
agriculture chemical representatives provided a 10 percent cost-share on company-selected
herbicide programs. NRCS secured grant funds to offset the additional $4 per acre application
cost. "The farmer's financial outlay was nearly the same as it would have been had they used a
conventional weed control program," explained Huntley. Specialists from NRCS and the
University of Missouri also provided technical services, including weekly field assessments. The
farmers and custom applicators received weekly crop scouting reports that allowed them to target
areas for pesticide application or identify areas that did not need additional treatment.
The two-pass program also presented risks to the farmer. As with any new technique, the farmer
assumes a production risk by changing standard practice. Also, the weather dictates if the farmer is
able to get the equipment back on the field to apply the second portion of the program containing
the atrazine. "There is a weather risk if they can't get back on the field to control the weeds it
might affect the overall yield," explained Huntley.
Program Results
Despite the obstacles, the two-pass program proved to be an overwhelming success in 1999.
Monitoring of the raw reservoir water indicated a 72 percent reduction in average atrazine
concentrations for the period of April through July 1999, as compared to levels seen during the same
months in 1995 to 1998. This impressive reduction occurred even though the overall number of acres
in production had increased by 66 percent over the previous 6-year average. The success of the project
is continuing into its second year. "Results this year also appear favorable so far. Although it has
rained more this summer than last, we haven't had large runoff events, " noted Huntley.
Area farmers like Tuley Elliot are pleased with the program. "It can be more expensive to go with a
two-pass plan but we were happy with the weed control, and it definitely reduced atrazine runoff into
the water. All in all, I'm proud of what we've done and I'm glad it has drawn the interest that it has."
Unlike many pollution control programs, the atrazine abatement and management program has
translated into economic gains for the farmer. "This program can improve environmental quality
and increase farm income. In many cases better weed control can translate into higher yields for the
farmers," emphasized Huntley. Some farmers also had lower up-front costs when the scouting
reports indicated that not all of the fields needed the second or post-emergence application.
Unfortunately, this is the last year of secured funding. Although NRCS is seeking additional
funding to help support the program in the future, their ultimate goal is to sell it without the
incentives. Would farmers continue to participate if the incentives were no longer provided? "Yes
and no," replied Huntley. "Some farmers were impressed enough by the weed control, and in some
instances the reduced costs, to continue. We hope that the program will eventually be adopted by
farmers on its own merit." The Route J watershed project is a model for successfully attacking
environmental problems while maintaining the economic viability of a watershed's agriculture.
[For more information, contact Troy Huntley, NRCS IPM Specialist, 28898 US Hwy 63, Macon, MO
63552-9587. Phone: (660) 385-6359; e-mail: troy.huntley(s>mo.usda.gov.]
Huntley, an integrated pest management specialist with the NRCS. The drier soils experienced
during the summer also allow the atrazine to infiltrate into the soil at a greater rate, reducing the
potential for runoff while providing residual control of weeds. "
Technical and Economic Incentives Offset Costs
As might be expected, the two-pass program resulted in a higher price tag. First, to compensate for
reduced application of the inexpensive atrazine, expensive replacement herbicides were sometimes
used in combination with genetically resistant seed. These expensive replacement herbicides raised
costs by up to $10 per acre, depending on the herbicide program selected. Secondly, genetically
modified seed can add to the cost if the growers had not used it previously. And lastly, an extra
application raises the cost by approximately $4 per acre.
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 19
-------
Laser Scanner Helps Prevent Soil Erosion
EDITOR'S NOTE: Adapted from an article printed in Agricultural Research by the Agricultural Re-
search Service, USDA.
When people think of Manhattan, images of blustery, dry corn fields aren't the first things that
come to mind. That is, unless they are thinking about Manhattan, Kansas. There, high winds and
blowing dust cause several serious car accidents each year. That blowing dust causes other
problems, too. Erosion removes more than 2 billion tons of soil from U.S. cropland annually, and
wind erosion causes about 45 percent of this loss. Excessive erosion triggers worries about
sediments, nutrients, and pesticides affecting water quality, as well as concerns about air quality
and traffic visibility in wind-erosion-prone areas of the West, Midwest, and northern and southern
plains. Two agricultural engineers in Manhattan are working on solutions.
Evolution of the Scanner
Larry Wagner and Fred Fox from the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Wind Erosion Research
Unit in Manhattan used the principles and technology developed by ARS soil scientist Chi-hua
Huang in West Lafayette, Indiana to develop a small, lightweight laser scanner that measures
standing crop residue. "Left standing, crop residue can be 10 times more effective in helping reduce
wind erosion than if the same residue were flat," says Wagner.
In West Lafayette, Huang and co-workers measure soil surface roughness with sophisticated
machinery. To measure faster and more accurately, Huang developed a laser scanner by combining
a 35-mm camera and a low-power laser beam. Instead of film, the camera has electronic circuitry
like a video camera. "This scanner makes just one pass with an advancing red line like a copy
machine light," says Huang. He speaks of landscape on the microtopographic scale grains of
sand, soil clods, rocks, and small depressions rather than mountains and valleys. Together, soil
particles and rocks account for how rough a soil surface is, and roughness affects the amount of soil
that can be carried away by wind and water. "Most of what is assumed about water erosion comes
from studying water moving over a river bed. But erosion is different when you're looking at
submerged soil," say Huang. From the first scanner, Huang and colleagues found that soil
depressions slow erosion by holding water. But when the depressions get full, they start spilling into
each other, concentrating the runoff into an erosive stream. The result is that erosion worsens.
Fox and Wagner's new scanner has a range of 10 inches to 15 feet. The laser optics are mounted on
a traversing rail for row measurements or on a turntable to measure standing residue in a 10-foot
circle. Fox and Wagner interact closely with farmers in erosion-prone areas of Kansas to team up
against erosion. They encourage farmers to delay tillage during dry seasons and to consider no-till.
[For more information, contact Larry Wagner or Fred Fox, USDA-ARS Wind Erosion Research Unit,
Throckmorton Flail, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506. Phone (785) 532-6807 (Wagner) and
(785) 532-6694 (Fox); fax: (785) 532-6528. Chi-hua Fluang is at the USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion
Research Laboratory, 1196 Soil Building, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Phone (765)
494-8673; fax (765) 494-5948.]
Technical Notes
Innovative Irrigation System Implemented
Having a dry year? Some farmers participating in a demonstration project for a new irrigation
system sure aren't. Researchers in the Maumee River Basin in Ohio developed a recirculating
irrigation/drainage system that increases crop production while protecting water quality. The
Wetland Reservoir Subirrigation System (WRSIS) is comprised of a subsurface drainage pipe
network, a constructed wetland, and a water storage reservoir. The system applies irrigation water
through the pipes to the roots, captures and treats subsurface and surface drainage, and stores the
water for reuse. It operates in a closed loop, thereby minimizing runoff of sediment, nutrients, and
pesticides into the Maumee River.
20 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
Th I Schematic of WRSIS, showing relationship between cropland,
The irrigation Loop wetland, and reservoir. (Graphic by Leslie Zucker, Ohio State
University Extension.)
Irrigation water is applied through drain pipes to
the roots of crops (subirrigation). Hydraulic control Wetland
structures regulate the soil water levels during
irrigation.
The same pipe network routes subsurface
drainage to the constructed wetland. Surface
runoff from rain is also directed to the wetland.
The wetland captures the sediment and absorbs
some of the nutrients and pesticides from surface
runoff and subsurface drainage. Hydraulic control
structures regulate water depth in the wetland.
The water is then transferred into a water storage
reservoir, where it is held until needed again for
subirrigation.
Reservoir
Sinhiri
Subirrigated
Cropland
WRSIS development involved collaboration between USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) and Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Maumee Valley Resource
Conservation and Development Area (MVRCD), Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Ohio
State University, and Michigan State University. Project planning, design, and construction,
coordinated by the MVRCD, was funded primarily by grants from the EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office, the Lake Erie Protection Fund, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with
matching funds provided by each cooperating landowner. The ongoing research effort has been
funded from a variety of university and government agency (federal, state, and local) sources, in
turn providing support for five graduate students at Ohio State University.
Demonstration Sites
The project team installed systems at three demonstration sites in the Ohio portion of the Maumee
River Basin one each in Defiance, Fulton, and Van Wert counties. At each site, crop yields from
subirrigated fields are compared against those of control plots with drainage pipes but no irrigation.
Overall system design is based on a number of criteria and varies somewhat depending on site
conditions, such as topography, soil type, supplemental water supply, and subirrigated acreage.
NRCS engineers used a computer program (DRAINMOD) to design the subirrigation system and
estimate the size of the storage reservoirs needed. Wetlands were designed to receive surface runoff
and subsurface drainage from a 3-inch rainfall over a 24-hour period. To prepare for rainfall events
exceeding system storage capacity, managers also incorporated off-site effluent release mechanisms
from both the wetlands and the reservoirs that allow water to overflow either directly into a local
stream or into a drainage ditch that leads to a stream. For the Fulton and Van Wert locations, the
project team installed additional irrigation/drainage pipes between pre-existing drain lines and
equipped the whole network with irrigation capabilities. "Initial costs can be reduced substantially
by installing these systems at locations that already have subsurface drains," explained Barry Allred,
USDA Agricultural Engineer. The costs at each site (noted in the following paragraphs) included
the labor and materials needed for system installation, as well as the income lost by removing some
of the agricultural land from production.
Defiance County. Constructed in June 1995 at a cost of $44,700, the Defiance County
demonstration site contains two 3.5-acre subirrigated fields and 20 acres of control fields with
conventional drainage. Subsurface drainage and runoff are funneled into a 0.30-acre wetland with a
storage capacity of 185,000 gallons. Water is then pumped into a 0.39-acre storage reservoir with a
capacity of 780,000 gallons. Here, the water is stored until needed for subirrigation. Crop yield
data from 1997 and 1999 show a slight increase in the amount of corn and soybeans produced on
the subirrigated fields versus the control plot (1997: an additional 26 bushels of corn per acre;
1999: an additional 16 bushels of corn per acre and 13 bushels of soybeans per acre). Project
personnel installed an additional hydraulic control structure in the fall of 1999 that is expected to
increase yields by removing a wet zone in one of the subirrigated fields.
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
21
-------
Innovative
Irrigation System
Implemented
(continued)
Fulton County. Constructed in Spring 1996 at a cost of $60,000, the Fulton County
demonstration site contains two 20-acre fields one that is subirrigated and a control plot with
drainage pipes only. Subsurface and surface drainage from both fields is routed by gravity to a
1.4-acre wetland with a 1 million gallon capacity. Water is then pumped into a 1.57-acre, 2.3
million gallon storage reservoir and held until needed. The subirrigated fields showed increased
yields during each of the growing seasons from 1996 to 1999 an average of 44 more bushels of
corn per acre and 10.4 more bushels of soybeans per acre than the control plot.
Van Wert County. Constructed in Fall 1996 at a cost of $86,300, the Van Wert demonstration
site contains three 15-acre fields two that are subirrigated and one control plot with subsurface
drainage only. Surface runoff and subsurface drainage run into a concrete sump and are pumped
into either a 1.95-acre wetland holding 2.3 million gallons or a 3-acre storage reservoir holding 3.4
million gallons. In 1997 and 1998, little subsurface irrigation was needed because of normal or
above average rainfall. The subirrigation that did take place actually damaged some crops because a
wet zone formed in a poorly-drained area of the field. Project managers installed another hydraulic
control structure before the growing season in 1999 to correct this wet zone. Once the problem
was corrected, subirrigated field crop production exceeded that of the control plot by 33 bushels of
corn per acre and 12.8 bushels of soybeans per acre.
System Success
Based on the typical maximum yields during a good farming year in northwest Ohio, the WRSIS
project team set a crop yield goal of 200 bushels per acre for corn and 70 bushels per acre for
soybeans. Although the Fulton County site has come close to that goal, with a four-year average
total yield of 194 bushels per acre of corn and 66.4 bushels per acre of soybeans, the other two sites
posted considerably lower yields (a corn and soybean average of 152 and 45.7 bushels per acre,
respectively). These low numbers are partly due to a combination of wet years and poor drainage in
certain areas. As the project team continues to learn about and correct these problems, the averages
should increase. "At this point, the increased yields seen are probably not great enough to offset the
start-up and operational costs. However, costs will decrease as we gain more experience with
design, construction, and management of these innovative
systems," explained Allred. "Keep in mind that there are other
benefits that are difficult to put a price on, such as reduced
sediment and nutrient inputs into the river and increased
wetland wildlife habitat."
Economic Benefits of New Irrigation
System Will Be Gradual
To complement the WRSIS study, Ohio State University's
(OSU) Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and
Developmental Economics assessed the economic
viability of the system using the Fulton County demonstra-
tion site as an example. Their 1997 study yielded both
bad and good news. On the bad side, OSU's basic net
present value analysis indicated that landowners would
require a subsidy or transfer payment of some sort (such
as an Ohio Wetland's Mitigation Program payment) before
they could afford to invest in the system. Moreover, much
of the current positive value of the system is tax-related,
which poses uncertainty in the future as tax codes may
change. On the good side, the study found that once
system proponents get past the learning curve and are
able to install and operate the system at a lower cost, the
system will be more affordable and could be a viable
investment. Articles detailing the study are featured at
www.agecon.ag. ohio-state. edu/Faculty/mbatte/vanburen/P
DF/ASAE-subirrigation.pdf and also in the Journal of
Production Agriculture, 1999, Vol. 12, No. 4: 588-596.
For more information on the economic analysis performed
by OSU, contact Dr. Marvin Batte, The Ohio State
University, 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1067;
Phone: (614) 292-6406; e-mail: batte.1@osu.edu.
An extensive monitoring program will provide information
documenting WRSIS benefits to water quality, wildlife habitat,
and crop yield at all three sites. They are currently gathering
data on the quality of water being released offsite, the quality of
the recycled irrigation water, and wetland treatment efficiencies.
Notes Allred, "We'll have to collect data for a number of years
before we can draw firm conclusions about WRSIS sediment
and nutrient removal effectiveness. However, since they're
mostly a closed-loop system, we're confident that offsite escape
of sediment, nitrate, phosphate, and pesticides will be greatly
reduced."
This technology is already being transferred to other places.
Many of the design components from the first three WRSIS test
sites have been incorporated at a new location presently
operational on a private farm in the Big Darby Creek Watershed
in central Ohio. This new location uses no pumps and is totally
driven by gravity. An upland natural wetland, fed by surface
runoff and subsurface drainage, provides subirrigation water for
lower elevation agricultural fields. Subsurface drainage from
these fields is then routed to a down-gradient constructed
22 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
wetland for treatment before water is released offsite into a local stream. Other potential sites are
now being evaluated in Indiana and Ontario, Canada. WRSIS construction and management
concepts have recently been included in the Overholt Drainage School
(www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~agwatmgt/overholt.htm), an annual short course offered to consultants,
farmers, and drainage contractors that is coordinated by Larry Brown from the Food, Agricultural,
and Biological Engineering Department at The Ohio State University.
[For more information, contact Barry Aiired, Agricultural Engineer USDA-ARS Soil Drainage Research
Unit 590 Woody Hayes Drive, Room 234, Columbus, Ohio 43210. Phone: (614) 292-9806; e-mail:
allred.13@osu.edu. For more information on the project status, visit www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~agwatmgt/
wrsis.htm.]
New Technology Measures First Flush of Runoff
A new low-cost First Flush Samplerฎ (FFS) that samples both surface sheet flow and concentrated
flow from channels and gutters should provide watershed restoration practitioners with a low-cost
NPS measurement device that can help make watershed research, compliance with NPDES
regulations, and even establishing TMDLs easier.
The FFS consists of a five-port grate, a sample receptacle, o-rings, an insert, and a protective housing.
These components make up the entire sheet flow water quality monitoring device, which is made
entirely of plastic. The grate, insert, and protective housing are manufactured from glass-filled
polycarbonate (strong and durable) and the sample receptacle from high-density polyethylene
(HDPE), a chemically compatible material that will not compromise the analytical results. The
housing is permanently installed at the site (i.e., a highway shoulder or a BMP inlet) by placing the
insert body below grade so that its top is flush with the shoulder surface, with the top's long axis
perpendicular to the direction of sheet flow runoff. Once installed, the unit can be used repeatedly to
gather runoff water. The top must be flush with the surface to ensure proper operation.
To operate the FFS, the user removes the grate section and places the sample receptacle in the
recess, then replaces the grate. The user tailors the sampling to meet the specific drainage area
contributing to the sheet flow measurement site by removing the appropriate number of plugs
from the sample ports (five maximum). The unplugged, or open sample ports, are selected to
enable the 5-liter sampler to "just fill" when it experiences the desired rainfall depth (i.e., one-half
inch). The known capture efficiency enables the user to approximate how much volume is captured
for a given rainfall depth or how much rain corresponds to a given sample volume for a specific
length of sheet flow and length of roadway. After a rain event, the user lifts the sealed sample
receptacle from the recess beneath the grate, labels it, and places it in a cooler with ice for transport
or shipment to the laboratory. If another sample is to be taken, the user places another sample
receptacle in the recess. If no sample is to be collected, the user replaces the grate section and plugs
all sample ports.
The principle of operation is simple; the known capture efficiency (developed through laboratory
testing) allows the volume of the captured sample to be estimated:
Vol. = 6.35 DRunoffLFlowNportsEffports, where:
Vol. = Required volume of sample, ml (up to 5000ml)
Drunoff = Desired rainfall capture depth, mm (i.e., 13 mm or Vz inch)
Lfiow = Runoff flow length, m
Nports = Number of sample-ports ( 5 max)
Effports ~ Sample-port capture efficiency (0.7 for low-intensity rains and
1.5 for high-intensity rains of % inch per hour or more)
FFS was developed under a grant from the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, a
program that provides qualified small businesses with opportunities to propose innovative ideas
that meet the specific research needs of federal government agencies. In this case, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) needed a low cost technology to gather runoff from impervious
Innovative
Irrigation System
Implemented
(continued)
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 23
-------
New Technology surfaces with a low risk of vandalism. FHWA environmental managers Fred Bank and Pat Cazenas
Measures First identified and secured a grant for $600,000 from SBIR to develop, test, and manufacture the First
Flush of Runoff Flush Sampler.
(continued)
In addition to being small, cheap, and easy to install, the FFS has two important characteristics
that make it valuable for establishing TMDLs:
It provides a simple means to directly collect samples of surface runoff near where rain
starts to flow downhill, thus securing samples that closely represent "pure" land use; and
It provides an estimate of the rainfall depth based on the volume of the captured sample.
To evaluate FFS in the field, devices were installed at four sites in Maryland and five in Virginia.
The Maryland sites were along roads serving from 5,000 to 10,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT).
Three of the five sites in Virginia were from 3,000 to 27,000 ADT. The other two Virginia sites
were used for parking cars a high school and a municipal office building lot. Three groups,
University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, and GKY and Associates collected the samples from May
through December 1999. The Virginia Tech Occoquan Water Monitoring Laboratory analyzed the
samples for pollutant concentrations. The procedure for collecting samples is incorporated in an
operations manual that comes with the FFS.
In independent studies, University of Virginia researchers found that the FFS "is an effective means
for collecting edge of pavement samples." They also found that the FFS "was relatively easy to
maintain and monitor" and "extremely useful for collection of inflow samples for selected sites." A
Virginia Tech research team found that "the device is easy to install and service in the field" and
"laboratory tests and field trials have shown that the device performs well."
The FFS has already been used in real applications to
evaluate BMPs (Texas A&M),
evaluate biosolids application to fields (University of Florida),
measure highway runoff (Minnesota Department of Transportation), and to
test the product itself on highways and parking lots in Virginia and Maryland.
Preliminary results of these applications illustrate the strength of highway runoff and suggest a
linkage to traffic volume.
What's the catch? The only downsides of the First Flush Sampler are that some heavy trucks can
crack the grating and that the grating "hold-downs" can be overtightened and dislodge themselves
a small price to pay considering the fact that each unit costs only $200 to replace.
[Ken Young, Stu Stein, and Frank Graziano hold the U.S. patent and SBIR commercialization rights for
FFS. For more information, contact either Young or Stein at GKY & Associates, Inc., 5411 E. Backlick
Road, Springfield, I/A. Phone: (703) 642-5080; e-mail: ffs@gky.com, kyoung@gky.com, or
sstein@gky.com. The web site is www.gky.com].
Study Finds Low Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations Deadly to Tadpoles
Researchers studying the responses of amphibians to nutrient levels in fresh waters have found that
nitrate and nitrite concentrations well below water quality standards for drinking water and aquatic
life lead to significant mortality rates for some frog and salamander larvae. In a study published
recently in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Andrew Blaustein of Oregon State University
and two colleagues from Spain report that nitrite levels as low as 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
killed half of the frog and salamander larvae tested after 15 days of exposure. The researchers noted
that their study might implicate runoff of nitrogen fertilizers as part of the reason for the decline in
amphibian species in agricultural regions.
The study team tested larvae of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), red-legged frog (Rana
aurora), Western toad (Bufo boreasj, Pacific treefrog {Hyla regilla), and Northwestern salamander
(.Ambrystoma gracile). Test larvae were placed in water with varying concentrations of nitrate and
nitrite; control groups were maintained in purified water for each test. Nitrate concentrations
ranged from 0 to 25 mg/L, and nitrite levels tested ranged from 0 to 7 mg/L. The team monitored
for larvae mortality, activity level and behavior, and the presence of abnormalities.
24 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
Study Finds Low
Nitrate/Nitrite
Concentrations
Deadly to
Tadpoles
(continued)
The researchers discovered significant differences in sensitivity among species. In higher concentra-
tions of nitrate, Northwestern salamander and Oregon spotted frog larvae ate less, swam less
vigorously, showed disequilibrium, and experienced abnormalities (mainly swelling and bent tails)
and paralysis; many eventually died. Western toad and Pacific treefrog larvae experienced very low
effects at all concentrations. After 4 days, Northwestern salamander larvae appeared to be the most
sensitive species and showed significant mortality at the highest concentration. The three frog
species tested did not experience significant mortality until after the initial 4-day period in any of
the test containers. After 15 days, differences in sensitivity among the species were more apparent,
with the Oregon spotted frog and Northwestern salamander groups showing the most effects.
Nitrite concentration tests showed similar impacts on larvae in all areas at higher concentrations. The
observed effects increased with both concentration and time, and there were significant differences in
sensitivity among species. The lethal concentration values for half (i.e., LC50) of the test species
indicate a high sensitivity of the five amphibians to nitrite. Again, significant differences among the
species were evident.
The researchers discussed their findings in view of the decreasing distribution of test species
throughout their native range in the Northwest. The Northwestern salamander is still present in
lowland valleys of western Oregon and Washington, but the Oregon spotted frog is extremely rare
in these areas. The experiments showed a strong sensitivity of Oregon spotted frog and
Northwestern salamander larvae to relatively low levels of both nitrate and nitrite. The researchers
speculated that runoff of nitrogen-based chemical fertilizers could be one reason Oregon spotted
frog populations are declining in the lowlands.
Introduced bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana, may also be contributing to the decline of Oregon spotted
frogs and other amphibians in the Willamette Valley. Bullfrogs may compete with or prey upon
native amphibian species and seem to alter their use of habitat. Bullfrogs might also be more
tolerant of nitrogen-based fertilizers than other amphibians, allowing their number to increase in
areas where there are other, more sensitive populations of amphibians. Previous research suggested
that bullfrog tadpoles are relatively tolerant to nitrite, which may help them to survive in areas with
intense agricultural uses.
Some surface water and ground water resources contain levels of nitrates that exceed the drinking
water standard of 10 mg/L. The U.S. Geological Survey found recently in a nationwide study that
nitrate concentrations in 15 percent of shallow ground waters sampled and levels in some streams in
agricultural areas exceeded the drinking water standard, especially after spring fertilizer applications.
Treatment is required if these water sources are to be used as potable water supplies. According to the
researchers, these concentrations are highly toxic to the Oregon spotted frog and Northwestern
salamander. The recommended level of nitrate for drinking water (10 mg/L) is moderately toxic to
the Oregon spotted frog. The recommended level of nitrate for warmwater fishes (90 mg/L) is almost
four times higher than the 15-day LC50 for the Oregon spotted frog and two times higher than that
for the Northwestern salamander. The recommended level of nitrite for drinking water (1 mg/L) is
highly toxic for the Oregon spotted frog and Northwestern salamander and moderately toxic for the
rest of the amphibians tested. The 15-day LC50 for nitrite for all the studied species was mostly below
the recommended level for warmwater fishes (5 mg/L).
The research conducted by Blaustein and his colleagues might have implications for nutrient
criteria programs. EPA and agency stakeholders have devised the National Strategy for the Develop-
ment of Regional Nutrient Criteria as part of the Clean Water Action Plan. The strategy seeks to use
a regional and waterbody-type approach in developing water quality criteria for nutrients, which
eventually would be incorporated into state and tribal water quality standards programs. Thomas
Gardner, who is working on the strategy as part of EPA's National Nutrient Team, said his group is
interested in Blaustein's findings and has discussed the study in their group meetings.
[The complete study, "Sensitivity to Nitrate and Nitrite in Pond-breeding Amphibians from the Pacific
Northwest USA," can be found in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 18, No. 12, pp.
2836-2839. See http://setac.org/to access the on-line version. For more information, contact Andrew
Blaustein at (541) 737-5356 or Thomas Gardner at gardner.thomas@epa.gov.]
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 25
-------
Notes on Education
Watershed Teaching Tool Hits Home in New Jersey
Thanks to the New Jersey Audubon Society (NJAS), middle and high school students are getting
in touch with their watersheds. The NJAS has developed a guide called New Jersey WATERS
(Watershed Approach to Teaching the Ecology of Regional Systems) that focuses on the ecological,
social, and economic issues linked to New Jersey watersheds. The guide is designed to provide
students the opportunity to collect, share, analyze, and compare scientific, cultural, economic, and
historical New Jersey data.
The NJAS is a nonprofit conservation organization (not
affiliated with the National Audubon Society) that tries to
preserve habitat and species diversity by fostering
environmental awareness. "With the guide, we try to show
that when you deal with any habitat issue it can always be
translated into watershed terms, " explains Dale Rosselet,
NJAS Director of Education.
The New Jersey WATERS guide is
organized into
4 process-oriented chapters.
1. Sense of place. Which watershed do you live in?
2. Sense of time. How does your watershed change over time?
3. Quality of watershed. What factors determine your
watershed's health (including surface water, ground water,
habitat, etc.)?
4. Sense of connection. How do you affect your watershed?
Watershed Partnership for
New Jersey Formed
As in many states across the country, New Jersey has
diverse organizations that support or participate in
environmental education and outreach. Realizing that their
effectiveness could be improved through cooperation,
more than 70 New Jersey nonprofit, federal, state, county
and local agencies, educational institutions, and private
industries have joined to form a statewide nonprofit
educational partnership that focuses specifically on
watershed education. The Watershed Partnership for New
Jersey (WPNJ) works through multiorganization
committees to achieve the following goals:
* Establish a watershed resources network
* Enhance watershed awareness through education
* Encourage community watershed involvement
* Strengthen alliances and partnerships among
watershed groups
For more information about the WPNJ, visit their web site
at www.wpnj.org.
The guide focuses on a process-oriented approach to
learning about New Jersey watersheds. For each general
topic (chapter), the guide teaches a basic awareness of the
subject, and, lesson by lesson, increases in complexity until
the students are participating in activities that involve
community outreach. According to Rosselet, this approach
"encourages students to think, question, and discover on
their own. The world changes so quickly. We want to give
students the tools to adapt."
Funded by the Environmental Endowment for New Jersey,
the 220-page guide has been available since November
1999. The NJAS hosted six workshops in the spring of
2000, training 132 teachers, state and local officials, and
watershed professionals. Six more workshops are planned
for spring 2001.
Dale Rosselet pointed out that "teachers usually don't have
time to tailor general guides to reflect their region. We've
done that for them in our guide. Other organizations could
easily use our guide as a model to create something similar
for their state they would just have to collect the
necessary background information."
[Copies of New Jersey WATERS are available for $30 plus
shipping and handling from the NJAS Scherman-Hoffman
Sanctuary Bookstore, P.O. Box 693, Bernardsville, NJ 07924.
Phone: (908) 766-5787. For more information, contact Dale
Rosselet, New Jersey Audubon Society, Center for Research
and Education, 600 Route 4 7 North, Cape May Court House,
New Jersey 08210. Phone: (609) 861-0700; e-mail:
dale@njaudubon.org.]
Virginia Governor's Academy for Environmental Stewardship
Virginia is preparing its young people to tackle future environmental issues. Thirty-two rising
juniors from 28 Virginia high schools participated this summer in the first Governor's Academy for
Environmental Stewardship, a week-long program to prepare young people for careers managing
Virginia's natural resources in the future. The academy is part of Virginia Naturally 2000, the
state's official environmental education initiative to promote lifelong learning about Virginia's
environment and stewardship of the state's natural and historic resources.
26 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
Selected on the basis of an expressed interest in natural resources as well as academics and
recommendations, the students were divided into two groups for week-long sessions (July 16-22
and August 13-19) at the new Cove Ridge Environmental Education Center at Natural Tunnel
State Park in southwestern Virginia. "They spent a week learning about careers in natural
resources," said Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources John Paul Woodley, Jr., "by working in
field studies with forestry, fish and wildlife management, watershed management, water quality,
threatened and endangered species, and geology."
Instructors from diverse natural resource disciplines offered students the opportunity to see first
hand what they do. Activities included tagging and tracking wildlife, studying beds of threatened
and endangered mussels, touring a power plant, comparing sinkholes on the ground surface with
karst features underground, studying stream morphology, and participating in a career fair.
"Students previously had no concept of the many careers that are available in industry, government,
watershed groups, and so on. Because there were only 16 students at a time, they had more
one-on-one time with the instructors to learn what they really do," explained Dawn Shank, who
helped coordinate the academy for the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Private industry, conservation organizations, and universities have joined the state to provide
technical support, scholarships, and other resources to the academy. For example, Philip Morris
contributed eight Enviroscapes, an interactive 3-D tabletop watershed model, to the academy at a
May 30 event. Recognizing the value of hands-on education for all ages, Philip Morris also donated
15 Enviroscapes to Richmond city schools that same day. "These environmental models will help
our students in elementary through high school learn about the science of water systems and the
importance of water conservation, " said Charles Agee, Community Relations Manager for Philip
Morris in Richmond.
Virginia's Governor's Academy for Environmental Stewardship has bridged the gap for students
between textbook learning and hands-on application. By encouraging private and public organiza-
tions to support the academy and other education efforts, Virginia provides an opportunity for those
organizations to invest in students' environmental education and Virginia's environmental future.
[For more information, contact Dawn Shank, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,
203 Governor Street, Suite 213, Richmond, I/A 23219-2094. Phone: (877) 42 WATER; e-mail:
dshank@dcr.state.va.us; web site: www.vanaturaiiy.com.]
Educational Resources Column
VIDEOS
Urban Stormwater Control Demo. This 14-minute video showcases the urban stormwater
demonstration project designed and installed by the Environmental Center of the Rockies to
manage rainfall on site. From its central location at Baseline and Broadway in Boulder, Colorado,
the project, one of The National Forum on Nonpoint Source Pollution's 25 demonstration
projects, continually shows passersby how to create a sustainable landscape and reduce nonpoint
source pollution. Professionally produced by Channel 8 in Boulder, this excellent video can inspire
other communities to control urban stormwater pollution. It can be purchased for $25 (bulk rate
available) by phoning (303) 441-3550 or e-mailing stientjesj@ci.boulder.co.us.
Treading Responsibly: Walking in the Shoes of a Water Drop! This comical video from the
San Antonio Water System (SAWS) shows San Antonio residents how neighborhood activities
affect regional water quality. The story line follows Jerry, a "water drop," through four unique
scenes that address watersheds, lawn chemical use, pipes, and construction activities. It is available
free of charge to homeowner associations. For more information, contact Suzanne M. Weedman,
Environmental Services Supervisor, Watershed Protection and Management, 1001 E. Market
Street, P.O. Box 2449, San Antonio, TX 78298-2449. Fax: (210) 704-7508; e-mail:
sweedman@saws.org.
Virginia
Governor's
Academy for
Environmental
Stewardship
(continued)
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 27
-------
Reviews and Announcements
Send Us Your I&E Success Stories!
An upcoming issue of News-Notes will have a special focus on nonpoint source Information and
Education (I&E), and we would like to feature your stories on innovative I&E projects occurring
in your local watershed. In particular, if you have any stories on successful NPS media campaigns
or integrating NPS curricula into schools, we would like to hear from you! Both of these topics are
priority action items for a new State/EPA Nonpoint Source Management Partnership created by
the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators and EPA. We want
to share and learn from your successes! Contact Stacie Craddock with questions at 202-260-3788
and e-mail your stories to craddock.stacie@epa.gov.
Third Edition of Handbook for Making Land-use Decisions
The third edition of Common Groundwork: A Practical Guide to Protecting Rural and Urban Land is
now available. The book, a joint project of the Western Reserve Resource Conservation and
Development Council, Seventh Generation, the Ohio Office of Farmland Preservation, and
Chadbourne and Chadbourne, Inc., focuses on sustainability and smart growth. Topics include the
role of planning in land preservation, land management tools, and how local government works with
respect to land use. The price is $28.50 per copy plus $3 for shipping and handling; Ohio buyers
must also pay $1.57 state tax. Call (800) 484-7949 (plus the 4-digit code 1993), or mail payment to
Chadbourne and Chadbourne, Inc., 18554 Haskins Rd., Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44023-1823.
GIS Proceedings Available
The proceedings from the conference Environmental Problem Solving with GIS held in Cincinnati,
Ohio on September 22-24, 1999 is now available. For copies, contact Sue Schock at (513) 569-7551.
Maryland County Releases Environmental Assessment 2000
Maryland's Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection recently developed its
Environmental Assessment 2000. The report, presented on a glossy, fold-out poster, outlines indicators
of environmental health and quality throughout the county. Environmental Assessment 2000identifies
significant resource concerns throughout the county in key areas, including agriculture, air quality,
biodiversity, energy, groundwater, hazardous material, noise, transportation, solid waste and recycling,
and watershed quality. The poster identifies individual indicators that provide benchmarks that can
be used in the future to assess program effectiveness, identify significant trends, and determine the
need for new initiatives. For copies of the report, call the Montgomery County Department of
Environmental Protection at (240) 777-7700 or e-mail: help@askDEP.com.
Tribal Wetland Program Efforts Shed Light in New Publication
The Wetlands Division of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds has published
Tribal Wetland Program Highlights (EPA 843-R-99-002), a milestone in the Division's ongoing
effort to support the development of comprehensive tribal wetland programs. Eleven case studies
(each officially approved by its respective tribe or native organization) highlight the experiences of
tribal organizations and feature varying components of tribal programs, including tools and
strategies to protect and restore wetlands and watersheds. Tribal Wetland Program Highlights offers
tribes and their partners (at the federal, state, and local level) an opportunity to examine techniques
for water resource management and to explore the range of tools and strategies currently in use.
The publication is also designed to encourage partners to discover sources of inspiration for new
approaches to wetland protection that will achieve desirable wetland protection goals. Copies are
available from the Wetlands Helpline at (800) 832-7828 (Fax (703) 748-1308) and will soon be on
EPA's web site at www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands. For more information contact Kathleen
Kutschenreuter at (202) 260-5356.
28 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
Correction In the last issue of News-Notes (#61 July) we announced the availability of a new publication
called Recipes for Clean Water: A Homeowner's Stormwater Survival Guide. In the announcement we
mistakenly listed the wrong email address for author Bill Boudreau. His correct e-mail address is
cremboudreau@uswest.net.
Web Sites Worth a Bookmark
http://outreach. missouri. edu/mowin/
The Missouri Watershed Information Network, or Mo WIN, assists in locating and accessing
information relative to Missouri watersheds. It provides information for state and federal agencies,
non-governmental organizations, natural resources interest groups, and private industry working
together to protect watersheds in Missouri. The site has information on current watershed events
and upcoming meetings, ongoing watershed projects, local watershed contacts, financial
information pertaining to grants and other funding sources, location of technical assistance, sources of
educational resource information, and sources of natural resource facts, reports, and data.
www. plannersweb. com/spra wl/home. html
Sprawl Guide, maintained by the Planning Commissioners Journal's Planners Web web site, offers
information on key issues associated with sprawl. It covers problems, solutions, resources, articles,
books, and more. It also provides a mechanism to search by state for groups or projects working to
curb urban sprawl.
www. smartgrowth. org/index2. html
The Smart Growth Network's (SGN) partners work collaboratively on outreach programs,
technical assistance, research, publications, and other collaborative projects. The site gives the latest
news on hot smart growth issues. It is a subset of www.sustainable.org and is maintained by the
Sustainable Communities Network.
Datebook DATEBOOK is prepared with the cooperation of our readers. If you would like a meeting or event placed
in the DATEBOOK, contact the NPS News-Notes editors. Notices should be in our hands at least two
months in advance to ensure timely publication.
Meetings and Events
October 2000
7 720 Wetland Training Institute's Wetland Construction and Restoration Course. Hastings, MI. Taught by G. Pierce and C.
Newling. For more information, contact the Wetland Training Institute, P.O. Box 31, Glenwood, NM 88039;
phone/fax: (877) 792-6482; e-mail: getinfo@wetlandtraining.com; web site: www.wetlandtraining.com.
7 72 7 Spanning Cultural and Ecological Diversity Through Environmental Education, 29th Annual Conference of the
North American Association for Environmental Education, South Padre Island, TX. Visit
www.naaee.org/html/conferences.html for more information.
2426 Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Program Conference 2000, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. The
conference will focus on erosion, sediment, and stormwater management. Registration $235. Contact Jeanne
Feurer, Conference Coordinator, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control,
Division of Soil and Water Conservation, 89 Kings Highway, Dover, DE 19901. Phone: (302) 739-4411; fax:
(302) 739-6724; e-mail: jfeurer@dnrec.state.de.us.
2628 National Carbon Sequestrian Conference, Missoula, MT. Contact Karen Reiter or Ted Dodge, (406) 587-6965;
e-mail: kreiter@mt.nrcs.usda.gov.
30 Healthy Watersheds: Community-based Partnerships for Environmental Decisionmaking. Aurora, CO. Contact Phyllis
O'Meara, (303) 671-1034, e-mail: paomeara@opm.gov.
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES 29
-------
November 2000
5-8
6-9
8-10
8-10
13-15
27-30
28
December 2000
4-9
5-8
13-14
January 2001
7-9
April 2001
18-20
May 2001
16-18
Atmospheric, Surface and Subsurface Hydrology and Interactions, Research Triangle Park, NC. For more information
on this conference sponsored by The American Institute of Hydrology, visit
www2 .ncsu.edu/ncsu/ CIL/WRRI/aihconf.html.
2000Annual Water Resources Conferenceer Resources Conference, Miami, FL. Contact Bob W. Higgins, Technical
Program Chairperson, Higgins Engineering, Inc., 4623 Forest Hill Blvd., Suite 113, West Palm Beach, FL 33415.
Phone: (561) 439-7807; fax: (561) 439-0026; e-mail: bhiggins@ix.netcom.com.
NALMS2000:20th International Symposium of the North American lake Management Society Miami, FL. Contact
Terry Thiessen, NALMS Conference Coordinator, PO Box 5443, Madison, WI 53705-5443. Phone: (608)
233-2836; fax: (608) 233-3186; e-mail: thiessen@nalms.org; web site:
www.nalms.org/symposia/miami / miami.htm.
Facilitating and Mediating Effective Environmental Agreements, Berkeley, CA. Contact CONCUR, Inc. (510)
649-8008; web: www.concurinc.com
2000 Groundwater Foundation Fall Conference: What Difference Does Environmental Education Tkfejfe/'Nebraska
City, NE. Contact the Groundwater Foundation at (800) 858-4844; e-mail: info@groundwater.org; web:
www. groundwater, org.
Managing Watersheds in the New Century: The 8th Biennial Conference of the Watershed Management Council,
Monterey, CA. Contact Watershed Management Council, c/o PSRP, University of California, One Shields Avenue,
Davis, CA 95616-8688. Phone: (760) 935-4903; e-mail: rick@icess.ucsb.edu; web: www.watershed.org/wmc.
Wetland Training Institute's Wetland Delineation for Executives Course. Seattle, WA. Taught by R. Pierce, C.
Newling, J. Teaford. For more information, contact the Wetland Training Institute, P.O. Box 31, Glenwood, NM
88039; phone/fax: (877) 792-6482; e-mail: getinfo@wetlandtraining.com; web site: www.wetlandtraining.com.
Watershed Management to Protect Declining Species, Seattle, WA. Contact AWRA, (540) 687-8390; e-mail:
awrahq@aol.com; web site: www.awra.org.
National Conference of Grazing lands, Las Vegas, NV. Contact Jon Peterson, (703) 455-6886; e-mail:
jwpeterson@erols.com.
Ground Water: A Transboundary, Strategic and Geopolitical Resource. Las Vegas, NE. Contact Bob Masters,
Conference Coordinator, Phone: (800) 551-7379, ext. 527; e-mail: rmaste@ngwa.org web site: www.ngwa.org.
International Symposium on Integrated Decisionmaking for Watershed Management. Chevy Chase, MD. Contact
Mary Leigh Wolfe, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech. Phone: (540) 231-6092; e-mail:
mlwolfe@vt.edu; web site: www.conted.vt.edu/watershed.htm.
4th National Mitigation Banking Conference, Fort Lauderdale, FL. Contact Terrene Institute. Phone: (800)
726-4853; email: terrinst@aol.com; web site: www.terrene.org.
2001 Communities Working for Wetlands. Orlando, FL. The Izaak Walton League of America. For more
information contact Save Our Streams. Phone: (800) BUG-IWLA (284-4952); web site:
www.iwla.org/SOS/awm/awmconf.html.
June 2001
10-15
5th International Conference on Diffuse Pollution. Milwaukee, WI. Sponsored by the International Water
Association, Specialist Group on Diffuse Pollution. Contact Vladimir Novotny, Institute for Urban Environmental
Risk Management, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881. Phone: (414) 288-3524; fax: (414)
288-7521; e-mail: environment@marquette.edu; web site: www.mu.edu/environment/iwa-page.htm.
Correction In the last issue of News-Notes (#61 July) we listed outdated information on the next meeting of
the North American Lake Management Society (NALMS). The next NALMS meeting will be held
November 8-10, 2000 in Miami, FL. For more information, contact Terry Thiessen, NALMS
Conference Coordinator, PO Box 5443, Madison, WI 53705-5443. Phone: (608) 233-2836; fax:
(608) 233-3186; e-mail: thiessen@nalms.org; web: www.nalms.org/symposia/miami/miami.htm.
30 NONPOINT SOURCE NEWS-NOTES
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62
-------
I
| Nonpoint Source Information Exchange Coupon
1 (Mail or Fax this coupon to us)
#62
Our Mailing Address: NPS News-Notes, do Terrene Institute, 4 Herbert Street,
Alexandria, VA 22305
Our Fax Numbers: NPS News-Notes (202) 260-1977 and (703) 548-6299.
Use this Coupon to
(check one or more) Q Share your Clean Water Experiences
~ Ask for Information
~ Make a Suggestion
Write your story, ask your questionr or make your suggestions here:
Attach additional pages if necessary.
Your Name: Date:
Organization:
Address:
City/State: Zip:
Phone: Fax:
E-mail: Web site:
OCTOBER 2000, ISSUE #62 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 water-
sheds. 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 activ-
ity, 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 which 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 COUPON on page 31.) However, NEWS-NOTES cannot assume any responsibility for publication or
nonpublication of unsolicited material nor for statements and opinions expressed by contributors. All material in
NEWS-NOTES has been prepared by the staff unless otherwise attributed. For inquiries on editorial matters, call (202)
260-3665 or FAX (202) 260-1977.
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. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. It is distributed free of cost. Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of EPA or
the Terrene Institute. Mention of commercial products or publications does not constitute endorsement, or recommen-
dation for use, by EPA or the Terrene Institute.
NONPOINT SOURCE NONPROFIT ORG
News-Notes
U.S. POSTAGE
PAI D
Merrifield, VA
Permit No. 1308
c/o Terrene Institute
4 Herbert Street
Alexandria, VA 22305
------- |